California State Water Resources Control Board · Groundwater Trend Monitoring Workplan . Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association • February 2017 i . Table of Contents . List of

Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association

Groundwater Trend Monitoring WorkplanTulare County, California • February 2017

Prepared for: Prepared by:


Groundwater Trend Monitoring Workplan Tulare County, California February 3, 2017

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

CERTIFICATIONS

This Groundwater Trend Monitoring Workplan is signed by the following certified professionals:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group

PROJECT TEAM

This Groundwater Trend Monitoring Workplan was prepared by the following project team members:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group

• Shawn Vaughn, PG

• Linda G. Sloan, PG, CHG

• Sarah Rutherford

• Jason Thomas

• Mallory Serrao


• Donald Ikemiya, Executive Director

Groundwater Trend Monitoring Workplan

Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association • February 2017 i

Table of Contents List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... v

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... vi

Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. vii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................1

1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association Organization Background ....................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Requirements of the Groundwater Trend Monitoring Workplan ....................... 1-1

1.2.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2.2 Implementation .................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.3 Reporting .............................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.3 Work Plan Phased Approach Summary .................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Interelated Irrigated Lands Requirements ............................................................................... 1-2

1.4.1 MPEP .................................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.4.2 CGQMP ................................................................................................................................. 1-3

1.4.3 Grower Information ............................................................................................................. 1-3

1.4.4 GTMP .................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.5 Regional Groundwater Trend Monitoring Approach ............................................................... 1-4

2 Regional Setting ......................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 General Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Climate ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Agriculture ................................................................................................................................ 2-2

2.4 Geology and Soils...................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.4.1 CVHM Well Log Texture ....................................................................................................... 2-3

2.4.2 Supplemental Area Regional Geologic Setting ..................................................................... 2-4

2.4.3 Soil and Soil Surface Characterization .................................................................................. 2-4

2.5 Hydrogeology............................................................................................................................ 2-5

2.5.1 Groundwater Levels ............................................................................................................. 2-5

2.5.2 Water Bearing Zones ............................................................................................................ 2-5

2.5.3 Recharge ............................................................................................................................... 2-6

2.6 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................. 2-6

2.6.1 Kaweah River ........................................................................................................................ 2-6


Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association • February 2017 ii

2.6.2 Creeks and Streams .............................................................................................................. 2-7

2.6.3 Friant-Kern Canal .................................................................................................................. 2-8

3 GAR Findings ..........................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Vulnerability Assessment ......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 High Vulnerability Designation ............................................................................................. 3-1

4 Trend Monitoring Network Design ..........................................................................................4-1

4.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Approach .................................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2.1 Major Crops by Acreage ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2.2 Hydrogeologic Conditions .................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2.3 Disadvantaged Communities ............................................................................................... 4-2

4.2.4 High Vulnerability Areas and Low Vulnerability Areas ......................................................... 4-2

4.2.5 Areas of Potential Recharge ................................................................................................. 4-3

4.2.6 Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Soil Textures .......................................... 4-3

4.2.7 Irrigation Methods ............................................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.8 Dairy Lands ........................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.3 Proposed Monitoring Areas ..................................................................................................... 4-4

4.3.1 Citrus .................................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.3.2 Walnuts and Pecans ............................................................................................................. 4-4

4.3.3 Pistachios .............................................................................................................................. 4-4

4.3.4 Corn ...................................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.3.5 Almonds ............................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.3.6 Small Grains .......................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.3.7 Alfalfa ................................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.3.8 Grapes .................................................................................................................................. 4-5

4.3.9 Olives .................................................................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.10 Cotton .............................................................................................................................. 4-6

4.3.11 Stone Fruit........................................................................................................................ 4-6

5 Well Selection Process and Data Acquisition ............................................................................5-1

5.1 Identification of Candidate Wells in Proposed Monitoring Areas ............................................ 5-1

5.1.1 Evaluation of Existing Monitoring Networks ........................................................................ 5-1

5.2 Candidate Well Vetting and Selection ...................................................................................... 5-2

5.2.1 Well Location and Land Use ................................................................................................. 5-2


Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association • February 2017 iii

5.2.2 Well Type .............................................................................................................................. 5-2

5.2.3 Well Construction ................................................................................................................. 5-2

5.2.4 Historic Groundwater Quality Records ................................................................................ 5-2

5.2.5 Well Owner Access Agreement ............................................................................................ 5-3

5.2.6 Field Assessment of Well ..................................................................................................... 5-3

5.3 Candidate Well Ranking System ............................................................................................... 5-3

6 Proposed Implementation .......................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Groundwater Monitoring Schedule .......................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Initial Groundwater Sampling and Survey ........................................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Annual Groundwater Sampling ............................................................................................ 6-2

6.1.3 Five-Year Groundwater Sampling ........................................................................................ 6-3

6.2 Groundwater Reporting ........................................................................................................... 6-3

6.3 Data Sufficiency ........................................................................................................................ 6-4

6.3.1 Maps ..................................................................................................................................... 6-4

6.3.2 Graphs .................................................................................................................................. 6-4

6.3.3 Diagrams............................................................................................................................... 6-4

6.3.4 Statistics ............................................................................................................................... 6-4

6.3.5 Other Analyses ..................................................................................................................... 6-5

7 Groundwater Monitoring Procedures ......................................................................................7-1

7.1 Well Owner Notification and Coordination .............................................................................. 7-1

7.2 Water Level Measurement ....................................................................................................... 7-1

7.3 Purging Wells ............................................................................................................................ 7-1

7.3.1 Domestic Wells ..................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.3.2 Groundwater Monitoring Wells ........................................................................................... 7-2

7.3.3 Agricultural Production Wells .............................................................................................. 7-2

7.4 Sample Collection ..................................................................................................................... 7-3

7.5 Equipment Cleaning ................................................................................................................. 7-3

7.6 Equipment List .......................................................................................................................... 7-3

7.6.1 Decontamination Equipment ............................................................................................... 7-3

7.6.2 Purging Equipment ............................................................................................................... 7-3

7.6.3 Sampling Equipment ............................................................................................................ 7-4

7.7 Field Sampling Log .................................................................................................................... 7-4

7.8 Sample Packaging and Transport ............................................................................................. 7-5


Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association • February 2017 iv

7.8.1 Sample Labeling ................................................................................................................... 7-5

7.8.2 Sample Transport ................................................................................................................. 7-5

7.9 Quality Assurance and Quality Control .................................................................................... 7-5

7.9.1 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control .............................................................................. 7-5

7.9.2 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control .................................................................... 7-6

8 Limitations..............................................................................................................................8-1

9 References ..............................................................................................................................9-1


Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association • February 2017 v

List of Figures Figure 1-1. Vicinity and Boundary Map ..................................................................................................... 1-6

Figure 1-2. KBWQA Enrolled Member Parcels and Dairy Map .................................................................. 1-7

Figure 2-1. Major Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 2-12

Figure 2-2. Groundwater Basins .............................................................................................................. 2-13

Figure 2-3. Crop Map ............................................................................................................................... 2-14

Figure 2-4. CVHM Well Log Texture at Depth 0-50 feet .......................................................................... 2-15

Figure 2-5. CVHM Well Log Texture at Depth 50-100 feet ...................................................................... 2-16

Figure 2-6. CVHM Well Log Texture at Depth 100-150 feet .................................................................... 2-17

Figure 2-7. CVHM Well Log Texture at Depth 150-200 feet .................................................................... 2-18

Figure 2-8. Geology Map .......................................................................................................................... 2-19

Figure 2-9. Soil Texture ............................................................................................................................ 2-20

Figure 2-10. Soil Type ............................................................................................................................... 2-21

Figure 2-11. Runoff Potential ................................................................................................................... 2-22

Figure 2-12. Spring 2015 Depth to Groundwater .................................................................................... 2-23

Figure 2-13. Spring 2016 Depth to Groundwater .................................................................................... 2-24

Figure 2-14. Spring 2015 Groundwater Surface Elevation ...................................................................... 2-25

Figure 2-15. Spring 2016 Groundwater Surface Elevation ...................................................................... 2-26

Figure 2-16. Vertical Conductivity and Potential Recharge Areas ........................................................... 2-27

Figure 2-17. Kaweah River System Schematic ......................................................................................... 2-28

Figure 3-1. Impacted Groundwater ........................................................................................................... 3-4

Figure 3-2. Designated High Vulnerability Areas ....................................................................................... 3-5

Figure 4-1. Crop Map with Proposed Monitoring Areas ............................................................................ 4-8

Figure 4-2. Spring 2016 Depth to Water with Possible Monitoring Areas ................................................ 4-9

Figure 4-3. Spring 2016 Groundwater Surface Elevation with Possible Monitoring Areas ..................... 4-10

Figure 4-4. Vertical Conductivity and Possible Monitoring Locations ..................................................... 4-11

Figure 4-5. Soil Textural Classes and Possible Monitoring Locations ...................................................... 4-12

Figure 4-6. High Vulnerability Areas and Possible Monitoring Locations ................................................ 4-13

Figure 4-7. Dominant Irrigation Category and Possible Monitoring Locations ....................................... 4-14

Figure 5-1. Well Selection Process Flow Chart ........................................................................................... 5-4


Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association • February 2017 vi

List of Tables Table 2-1. Primary Area Temperature and Precipitation Summary .......................................................... 2-9

Table 2-2. Supplemental Area Temperature and Precipitation Summary .............................................. 2-10

Table 2-3. Crops by Acreage .................................................................................................................... 2-11

Table 4-1. Monitoring Area Selection Factor Summary ............................................................................. 4-7

Table 6-1. Initial Groundwater Sampling Analyses .................................................................................... 6-1

Table 6-2. Annual Groundwater Sampling Analyses .................................................................................. 6-2

Table 6-3. Five-Year Groundwater Sampling Analyses .............................................................................. 6-3

Table 6-4. Potential Statistical Tests .......................................................................................................... 6-5


Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association • February 2017 vii

Abbreviations AMR ...................................................................................................................... Annual Monitoring Report

Canal ................................................................................................................................... Friant-Kern Canal

CASGEM ................................................................ California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring

CGQMP ................................................................. Comprehensive Groundwater Quality Management Plan

COC ............................................................................................................................. constituent of concern

CVHM .......................................................................................................... Central Valley Hydrologic Model

CV-SALTS ................................................... Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability

DAC ...................................................................................................................... Disadvantaged Community

Dairy GO ................. Reissued Waste Discharge Requirements General Order for Existing Milk Cow Dairies

DO ....................................................................................................................................... Dissolved Oxygen

DPR ........................................................................................ California Department of Pesticide Regulation

DWR ........................................................................................... California Department of Water Resources

EC ................................................................................................................................... electric conductivity

ELAP ................................................................................ Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

GAMA ........................................................................... Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment

GAR ............................................................................................... Groundwater Quality Assessment Report

General Order ......................................................Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R5-2013-0120

GIC ............................................................................................................. Groundwater Information Center

GPS .......................................................................................................................Global Positioning Systems

GQMP ............................................................................................. Groundwater Quality Management Plan

GSAs .................................................................................................... Groundwater Sustainability Agencies

GTMP............................................................................................. Groundwater Trend Monitoring Program

GTMW ......................................................................................... Groundwater Trend Monitoring Workplan

HVA ............................................................................................................................. high vulnerability area

ILRP......................................................................................................... Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program

KBWQA ........................................................................................... Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association

KCWD ................................................................................................................. Kings County Water District

KDWCD ........................................................................................ Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District

LVA ............................................................................................................................. Low Vulnerability Area

MCL ................................................................................................................. Maximum Contaminant Level

mg/L ................................................................................................................................. milligrams per liter


Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association • February 2017 viii

MPEP ......................................................................................... Management Practices Evaluation Program

MRP ........................................................................................................ Monitoring and Reporting Program

NMP .................................................................................................................... Nutrient Management Plan

NOA ............................................................................................................................. Notice of Applicability

NRCS ................................................................................................ Natural Resources Conservation Service

NWIS ..................................................................................................... National Water Information System

Provost & Pritchard ............................................................................ Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group

RWQCB ........................................................................ Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

SCID ................................................................................................................. Stone Corral Irrigation District

SGMA ........................................................................................ Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

SSJV ......................................................................................................................... South San Joaquin Valley

TDS ................................................................................................................................ total dissolved solids

TID ............................................................................................................................ Tulare Irrigation District

USEPA ................................................................................. United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS ............................................................................................................. United States Geological Survey

VK ................................................................................................................................... vertical conductivity

WDR ............................................................................................................. Waste Discharge Requirements

Executive Summary


Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association • February 2017 ES-1

Executive Summary This Groundwater Trend Monitoring Workplan (GTMW) has been prepared for the Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association (KBWQA) to fulfill the requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Waste Discharge Requirements of September 19, 2013 for Growers within the Tulare Lake Basin Area that are a member of a Third-Party Group, Order No. R5-2013-0120 (General Order).

The purpose of this GTMW is to establish a Groundwater Trend Monitoring Program (GTMP) as specified in Section IV of the General Order; Monitoring and Reporting Program. The objectives of the GTMP are to determine current groundwater quality conditions relevant to irrigated agriculture and to develop long-term groundwater quality information that can be used to evaluate the regional effects of irrigated agriculture and its practices.

This workplan has been prepared as an initial phase (Phase I) of the GTMW to identify general representative monitoring areas. A second phase (Phase II) of the work plan will be prepared for submittal after approval of the Phase I work plan. Included in the Phase II workplan will be the sampling implementation schedule. This approach allows the KBWQA to implement groundwater quality monitoring in advance of development of other components of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP), such as a coordinated regional monitoring effort.

Within the KBWQA, there are approximately 356,000 total acres in the Primary Area (San Joaquin Valley floor) and 602,000 total acres in the Supplemental Area (foothill and mountain areas). Of these areas, approximately 160,000 and 3,800 acres, respectively, are enrolled as grower members in compliance with the ILRP as of July 2016.

As discussed in the previously submitted Groundwater Quality Assessment Report (GAR), high vulnerability areas and low vulnerability areas were identified in the GAR based on criteria including groundwater quality exceedances in comparison to maximum contaminant level, up-trending nitrate concentrations in groundwater, and groundwater impacted areas upgradient of Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) or small water systems reliant on groundwater.

Building on the GAR findings, a total of 24 proposed monitoring areas were selected to be included in the groundwater monitoring design. Monitoring areas are not defined by specific acreage or location, but rather by specific criteria. Potential general monitoring areas were initially selected by reviewing crop maps for the largest crop types (by acreage) and selecting areas near each of those crop types that were:

1) located above relatively shallow groundwater;

2) generally upgradient of a DAC or within relatively close proximity of a DAC;

3) located in both low vulnerability areas and high vulnerability areas;

4) in areas with greater potential recharge as documented in the GAR;

5) generally representative of soil textural classes present in the KBWQA area; and

6) not downgradient from an area where other land application practices would potentially lead to water quality issues that could not be differentiated from those resulting from farming practices.

Once the initial crop type monitoring locations were selected, additional proposed monitoring areas were selected to represent deeper groundwater.

Executive Summary


Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association • February 2017 ES-2

Area specific well selections will be conducted in the Phase II GTMW, pending further feedback from the RWQCB and other coalitions. For each of the proposed monitoring areas, one primary and one backup well will be included in the GTMP. Well information from those selections will be included in the Phase II workplan, along with the sampling implementation schedule.

An initial pool of candidate wells will be identified in the Phase II GTMW. Wells in the monitoring areas will be located with the use of aerial photos, member growers’ farm evaluation data, Department of Water Resources (DWR) records, other agency sources, and potentially by roadside surveys. Based on the requirement to sample shallow groundwater, it is anticipated that domestic wells will comprise a majority of the monitoring network. As an extra measure of redundancy, backup wells will be selected to ensure continuity of the GTMP. Once candidate wells are identified, available well construction information will be gathered from well owners, DWR records, and other sources in order to assess the wells for minimum criteria for potential inclusion in the GTMP. Criteria to be assessed will include well location and overlying land use, well type, well construction (i.e., depth, perforated intervals, well seal information), and well access and condition. In the event that multiple candidate wells are identified in a monitoring area, a point system will be used to determine the most appropriate wells to be used as monitoring points in the monitoring areas.

As specified in the General Order, the GTMP network wells will be sampled annually at the same of the year. Sampling will begin upon approval of the Phase II work plan. At the time of the initial groundwater monitoring event and every fifth year thereafter, samples from the program wells and backup monitoring wells will be analyzed for electrical conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, nitrate as nitrogen, total dissolved solids, and general minerals. All other years, samples from the program wells will be analyzed for electrical conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and nitrate as nitrogen.

Annual groundwater sampling will occur approximately June of each year. Sample collection methods will follow industry standard procedures. Collected data from each well will be compiled into an electronic database. The results of trend monitoring are required to be included in the third-party’s Annual Monitoring Report and must include a map of the sampled wells, tabulation of the analytical data, and time concentrations charts. The Annual Monitoring Report will include a review of the constituents of concern and will include a discussion of monitoring data relative to applicable water quality objectives and groundwater quality management plans. Once sufficient data is collected, hydrographs and time-series concentration graphs will be included in the annual reports. Additional trend analysis methods such as the Piper and/or Stiff diagrams and statistical analysis will be used. Appropriate statistical methods will be used depending on the presence and number of non-detects, and whether the data is parametric. Potential statistical test methods that may be used include Dixon’s Test, Shewhart CUSUM Control Chart, Mann-Kendall, Theil-Sen, and ANOVA.

Section One: Introduction Groundwater Trend Monitoring Workplan

Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association • February 2017 1-1

1 Introduction

1.1 Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association Organization Background

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopted Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Growers within the Tulare Lake Basin Area that are members of a Third-Party Group, Order No. R5-2013-0120 (General Order) on September 19, 2013. The Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association (KBWQA or Coalition) (Figure 1-1) was authorized by the RWQCB as third-party group to represent growers within its service area by the Notice of Applicability (NOA) received from the RWQCB on February 7, 2014.

Within the KBWQA, there are approximately 356,000 total acres in the Primary Area (San Joaquin Valley floor) and 602,000 total acres in the Supplemental Area (foothill and mountain areas). The general boundary and location of the KBWQA is depicted in Figure 1-2. Of these areas, approximately 160,000 and 3,800 acres, respectively, are enrolled as grower members in compliance with the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) as of July 2016 (Figure 1-2).

1.2 Purpose and Requirements of the Groundwater Trend Monitoring Workplan

As specified in Section IV of Attachment B, Monitoring and Reporting Program, to Order R5-2013-0120 (MRP) the purpose of the Groundwater Trend Monitoring Workplan (GTMW) is to establish a Groundwater Trend Monitoring Program (GTMP). The KBWQA’s trend monitoring program and workplan areoutlined below.

1.2.1 Objectives

The General Order describes required objectives of the GTMP. These objectives include:

• Determine current water quality conditions of groundwater relevant to irrigated agriculture; and

• Develop long-term groundwater quality information that can be used to evaluate the regional effects of irrigated agriculture and its practices.

1.2.2 Implementation

• Trend monitoring is to include both high and low vulnerability areas; and

• The trend monitoring well network must consist of shallow wells, although not necessarily wells completed in the uppermost zone of first encountered groundwater. The use of existing monitoring networks, such as those used by AB 3030 and SB 1938 plans, may be considered by the Coalition to be incorportated as part of the GTMP.



1.2.3 Reporting

• Groundwater trend monitoring reports are to include a map of the sampled wells, tabulation of the analytical data, and time concentration charts;

• Groundwater monitoring data is to be submitted electronically to the State Water Board’s GeoTracker Database and to the Central Valley Water Board; and

• Once sufficient data has been collected, trend evaluations of the collected groundwater data are to be made.

1.3 Work Plan Phased Approach Summary

This workplan has been prepared as an initial phase (Phase I) of the GTMW to identify representative monitoring areas . A second phase (Phase II) of the work plan will be prepared for submittal after approval of the Phase I work plan. Included in the Phase II workplan will be the sampling implementation schedule. This approach allows the KBWQA to implement groundwater quality monitoring in advance of development of other components of the ILRP, such as a coordinated regional monitoring effort, described in the following sections.

1.4 Interelated Irrigated Lands Requirements

Fulfillment of requirements outlined in the General Order relies on the implementation of multiple co-dependent elements of the ILRP Program. These elements include the Groundwater Assessment Report (GAR), required member reports such as the Farm Evaluation Survey, Nitrogen Management Plan (NMP) Summary Reports, the Management Practices Evaluation Program (MPEP), and this GTMP. The implementation timelines for these elements vary and resulting data will be incorporated into analysis to be completed by the Coalition as required by the General Order. A cornerstone of the ILRP program is collecting and tracking information provided in Farm Evaluations and Nitrogen Summary Reports. The coalition will track this information over the long term and report annually to the RWQCB. Summary information will also be communicated to individual growers, this feedback enables them to review management practices on an on-farm basis. On the coalition scale these data will be analyzed further with respect to the MPEP and GTMP.

The significance and application of each of these ILRP elements in the ongoing monitoring plan strategy are detailed below.

1.4.1 MPEP

The KBWQA has joined with six other coalitions to form the South San Joaquin Valley (SSJV) MPEP Committee, and collaborates actively with a technical team (SSJV MPEP Team) to develop and implement a workplan. As specified in the General Order, the purpose of the MPEP is to determine the effects, if any, of irrigated agricultural practices on first encountered groundwater under varied conditions (e.g. soil type, depth to groundwater, irrigation practice, crop type, nutrient management practices). The SSJV MPEP anticipates using coalition collected data to characterize the extent and locations of implemented practices. On the basis of these and other data characterizing crops, soils, climate, and management systems, performance will be assessed at a field level scale and aggregated at a landscape scale (since this is the scale that influences groundwater quality). This assessment will occur



along with MPEP priority investigations to define performance on specific sites. The modeled output will be employed to gauge the performance of implemented practices throughout the region.

The MPEP supports the GTMP by providing calculated constituent fluxes (e.g. volume and mass) through the vadose zone and into groundwater to more accurately determine potential ongoing impacts from agricultural operations, residual impacts, and legacy contamination issues. In turn, the monitoring data generated under the GTMP supports the MPEP by providing feedback in the form of regional groundwater constituent concentrations to assess groundwater quality changes on a regional scale, and their response to changing management practices and other contributing factors.

1.4.2 CGQMP

The KBWQA’s Comprehensive Groundwater Quality Management Plan (CGQMP) dated September 2016 outlines a strategy to work with growers to implement protective management practices and a monitoring program which will provide feedback on CGQMP progress. Areas to be addressed by the CGQMP include all areas identified in the KBWQA’s GAR as high vulnerability areas (HVAs). The CGQMP also outlines the limitations of available data and the complex dynamics of decreasing the potential to leach nitrates from irrigated agriculture. The CGQMP relies on data generated by the GTMP to further validate protective practices as well as identify areas of deteriorated water quality.

1.4.3 Grower Information

Farm Evaluation Surveys and NMP Summary Reports are required to be completed by all members in the HVAs as identified by the GAR. Farm Evaluations were required by the General Order to be submitted to the third-party coalition in spring 2016 by large farms (those greater than 60 acres) in HVAs. The Farm Evaluation catalogues field specific crop and irrigation practices, including the implementation of protective practices relevant to irrigation efficiency, nitrogen application efficiency, and sediment and erosion control. The NMP Summary Reports are required to be submitted in spring of 2017 for growers of large farms in HVAs.

Farm Evaluations provide grower information on management practices at a field specific level. This data can be used to track trends in management practices over time including irrigation methods, crop type, and other protective practices. These management practice data can be summarized at a broad scale or reported at more specific locales to potentially analyze correlations in surface management practices and groundwater quality as collected by the GTMP, once sufficient data have been collected.

Nitrogen Summary Reports provide the Coalition with a nitrogen applied over crop yield ratio, from which nitrogen removed values will be calculated by KBWQA and shared back with growers. The KBWQA considers the NMP Summary Report to be a critical component of the ILRP and the information provided will be aggregated and submitted to the RWQCB annually as part of the Groundwater Quality Management Report and Annual Monitoring Report as well as groundwater quality data collected by the GTMP.

1.4.4 GTMP

The water quality data collected by the GTMP is not expected to reflect immediate surface conditions or management practices. As with any groundwater monitoring program the collected data is reflective of prior years percolation. The nitrogen application data may be used to later analyze correlations in surface management practices and groundwater quality as collected by the GTMP.



The coalition will work with growers through the CGQMP and the MPEP to provide outreach and education on management practices (frost protection irrigation, deep ripping, and proper closure of abandoned wells) which are protective of groundwater quality. Currently Tulare County does not maintain well destruction records. Annually, the KBWQA will summarize and evaluate grower information respective of abandoned well procedures to better quantify those areas at highest potential risk.

1.5 Regional Groundwater Trend Monitoring Approach

Groundwater quality monitoring data is currently collected by various entities throughout the state. Programs which require the development, or continuation, of groundwater quality monitoring include government agencies (California Department of Pesticide Regulation [DPR], Department of Drinking Water, State Water Resources Control Board and United States Geological Survey [USGS]), as well as those created by legislative mandates (SB 1938, AB 3030, and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act [SGMA]). Additionally, dairy industry representatives, Integrated Regional Water Management Groups, municipalities, and water districts, are other stakeholders which may be interested in groundwater quality monitoring data. Despite these many programs and stakeholders, no single integrated and coordinated groundwater monitoring network is currently in place in the Central Valley.

The RWQCB has expressed an interest in the development of a regional groundwater monitoring effort to be coordinated by ILRP coalitions. Other RWQCB programs (dairies, landfills, underground storage tanks, etc.) are designed to monitor targeted contaminants, specific to potential point sources, and do not account for regional trends in groundwater quality. As a nonpoint source program, the ILRP is tasked with monitoring region-wide groundwater quality, intended to document varied groundwater conditions to establish trends over time.

The KBWQA recognizes the importance of coordinating with other ILRP coalitions, as well as other entities, to develop a regional monitoring program. Implementation of groundwater monitoring programs is costly and complex. The development of a coordinated groundwater quality regional monitoring program would be more effective and efficient than multiple programs and agencies working individually.

As described in GTMP plans submitted by other coalitions, coordination, planning, and development of a regional monitoring strategy will require significant effort. Development of a governance structure, monitoring design, and implementation strategy are anticipated to require a minimum of two years, expected to be completed in 2019. As envisioned by other ILRP coalitions, collaboration is expected to include other agencies, groundwater monitoring groups and stakeholders. In particular, Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) are anticipated to play a key role in development of a regional groundwater monitoring effort. As part of SGMA, GSAs are also required to develop a groundwater monitoring strategy for priority pollutants. However, those monitoring plans are not required to be implemented until 2020, three years after some ILRP coalitions are required to submit their GTMPs. Additionally, General Order requirements for the KBWQA do not coincide with timelines for other ILRP coalitions and groundwater monitoring stakeholders. As described in the General Order, the approval of the GAR determines required submittal deadlines. The KBWQA received conditional approval of the GAR in February 3, 2016 resulting in multiple submittal and monitoring deadlines to be required in advance of other ILRP coalitions.



While continuing to support regional monitoring planning efforts, the KBWQA proposes to monitor groundwater quality areas, as defined in the following sections of this GTMP. The KBWQA monitoring sites could later be incorporated into a regional strategy. As previously noted, development of a regional monitoring strategy is anticipated to be completed in 2019. Groundwater quality data (collected in the interm by the KBWQA) could help inform regional monitoring decisions, as well as provide a baseline for future monitoring. This approach would allow for the collection of groundwater quality data in advance of the development of a coordinated regional monitoring strategy.



Figure 1-1. Vicinity and Boundary Map



Figure 1-2. KBWQA Enrolled Member Parcels and Dairy Map

Section Two: Regional Setting



2 Regional Setting

2.1 General Characteristics

The KBWQA is primarily located in Tulare County. The eastern edge is bounded by the Sierra Nevada Mountains that contains the watershed of the Kaweah River. The northern boundary roughly follows the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (KDWCD) northern border, but has been extended further north to include Stone Corral Irrigation District (SCID) and portions of Cottonwood Creek. The western boundary generally follows the Kings County Water District (KCWD) and Tulare Irrigation District (TID) borders. The southern boundary generally follows the KDWCD southern border, but approximately follows the Avenue 212 alignment as it heads towards the foothills.

The boundary area is divided into Primary and Supplemental Areas. The Primary Area, which contains almost all of the irrigated agriculture of the KBWQA, is approximately 356,000 acres (approximately 160,000 irrigated acres). The Supplemental Area, which contains the mountainous regions and little to no irrigated agriculture, is 602,000 acres (approximately 3,802 irrigated acres). The total boundary covers approximately 958,000 acres, making the KBWQA one of the smaller coalition areas within the Southern San Joaquin Valley. The Kaweah River provides the majority of the surface water supply to the area. The KBWQA area is comprised of the Kaweah River, the St. Johns River, the Kaweah River watershed above the Valley floor, and several minor foothill watersheds. Major rivers and streams in the sub-basin are illustrated in Figure 2-1.

The Kaweah sub-basin is located on the east side of the south-central portion of the San Joaquin Valley within the Tulare Lake Basin (Figure 2-2). The San Joaquin Valley, which is the southerly part of the great Central Valley of California, extends about 250 miles from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area at the north end to the Tehachapi Mountains at the south end. The Kaweah sub-basin lies between the Kings Groundwater sub-basin on the north and west, the Tule Groundwater sub-basin on the south, and crystalline bedrock of the Sierra Nevada foothills on the east. The sub-basin generally comprises lands in the KDWCD and is the approximate extent of the Primary KBWQA area. The sub-basin’s watershed is to the east and is the approximate extent of the Supplemental KBWQA area.

The Tulare Lake Basin is defined by the General Order as bounded by the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to the east, the San Joaquin River to the north, the Westlands Water Quality Coalition and the crest of the Southern Coast Ranges to the west, and the crest of the San Emigdio and Tehachapi Mountains to the south. Tributary streams drain to depressions, the largest of which is the Tulare Lake bed located to the west of the KBWQA boundary. The Kings, Kaweah, and Tule Rivers and, on occasion, the Kern River, discharge into the Tulare drainage basin including the beds of the former Tulare, Buena Vista, and Kern Lakes at times when flows exceed the capacity of foothill reservoirs and of the irrigation diversion systems. The Tulare Lake Basin is generally considered a “closed basin” as most surface waters are contained within the Basin boundaries and only in years of exceptionally high precipitation do surface waters flow into the San Joaquin River Delta system.

2.2 Climate

The climate in the Primary KBWQA area can be defined as semi-arid desert. The average rainfall in the KBWQA is 10.94 inches, based on historical statistics for the City of Visalia. Nearly 80 percent of the rainfall occurs between November and March, when most crops are not irrigated. Rainfall in summer




months, when irrigation is at its highest, is typically negligible. A summary of the monthly averages of temperature and precipitation from the time period of 1981 to 2010 for the Primary Area is provided in Table 2-1. On the Valley floor, average monthly rainfall during the wettest month of the year is only approximately 2 inches, while the total annual rainfall averages just under 11 inches.

The climate in the Supplemental Area can be divided into the foothill and mountain areas. Foothill temperatures near Three Rivers tend to be somewhat cooler than the valley floor with a yearly average precipitation of approximately 25 inches. The higher elevation mountain areas near Lodgepole in the Sequoia National Forest are typically the coolest in the region with normal winter lows down to 16°F and summer highs up to 73°F. The mountain area yearly precipitation averages 44.53 inches with the highest average precipitation occurring in January. Much of the winter precipitation occurs in the form of snow, melting in spring and early summer, increasing flows in rivers and streams in the Supplemental Area. A summary of the temperature and precipitation for the Supplemental Area is provided in Table 2-2.

2.3 Agriculture

Irrigated agriculture and dairies are the predominant land use within the KBWQA Primary Area. Citrus crops are the dominate land use in the eastern portion. The center of the Primary Area has deciduous fruit and nut crops as the primary crops with urban areas also located in the vicinity. In the western half of the study area, dairy land dominates the land use with forage crops dominating the types of crops grown.

Citrus, walnuts and pecans, pistachios, corn, almonds, small grains, alfalfa, grapes, olives, cotton, and stone fruit make up 95 percent of the crops grown within the KBWQA Primary Area. Citrus is the primary crop grown within the Supplemental Area. Most crops in the Supplemental Area are located adjacent to the border between the two areas. Table 2-3 summarizes crops by acreage and percentage for the KBWQA area based on the most current grower member farm evaluations. Crop locations are illustrated in Figure 2-3.

2.4 Geology and Soils

Information obtained from reports prepared for irrigation and water districts in the area, Central Valley Hydrologic Model (CVHM) well log texture data, and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils reports were summarized for the preparation of the GAR.

The KDWCD covers approximately 71 percent of the Primary KBWQA area. A report prepared by Fugro West, Inc. indicates that most of the fresh groundwater pumped within the KDWCD is from unconsolidated deposits of Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Recent Age. Consolidated marine rocks of Pliocene age and older which contain brackish or salty water constitute the effective base of fresh water (or permeable sediments).

Geologic units that affect the occurrence and movement of groundwater in the KDWCD are generally classified and described as follows:

a. Basement Rocks of pre-Tertiary age consisting of non-water-bearing granitic and metamorphic rocks. In the subsurface, they slope steeply westward from the Sierra Nevada beneath the deposits of Cretaceous age and younger rocks that compose the valley fill.




b. Marine Rock of Tertiary age consisting of non-water-bearing marine sediments including the San Joaquin Formation which overlap the basement complex and underlie the unconsolidated deposits.

c. Unconsolidated Deposits of older and younger alluvium consisting of non-marine, water-bearing material comprised of the Tulare Formation and equivalent units which thicken from zero along the western front of the Sierra Nevada to a maximum of about 10,000 feet at the west boundary of the KDWCD.

d. Alluvial Deposits consisting of coarse-grained, water-bearing alluvial fan and stream deposits including older oxidized and reduced units, and younger alluvium which underlie the older alluvium. The 200 to 500 feet thick oxidized deposits are red, yellow, and brown, consist of gravel, sand, silt and clay, and generally have well-developed soil profiles. Reduced deposits which extend to about 3,000 feet below land surface are blue, green, or gray, calcareous, are generally finer grained than oxidized deposits, and commonly have a higher organic content than the oxidized deposits.

e. Lacustrine and Marsh Deposits consisting of fine-grained sediments representing a lake and marsh phase of equivalent continental and alluvial fan deposition. Only the E-Clay (or Corcoran Clay member) of the Tulare Formation, one of the laterally continuous clay zones in the southern San Joaquin Valley, is found within the KDWCD, extending from the Tulare Lake Bed to U.S. Highway 99 with vertical bifurcation near Goshen. It is about 140 feet thick near Corcoran and the average thickness is about 75 feet.

Soils developed on younger alluvium show little or no profile development and are generally free of underlying clay subsoil or hardpan. Very coarse soils can be found beneath the channels of the Kaweah, Tule and Kings Rivers, with fine-grained deposits occurring in the channel of Cross Creek.

In the eastern portion of the KDWCD, the Rocky Hill fault disrupts pre-Eocene deposits and may locally penetrate older alluvial deposits, potentially restricting the hydrologic connection of aquifers.

A thickening section of unconsolidated deposits is indicated moving west across the KDWCD with modest warping of the Tulare Formation’s surface, suggesting regional folding during and after deposition, but having little effect on the patterns of groundwater flow within or at the KDWCD perimeter boundaries.

Other local irrigation districts include Alta, Stone Corral, Ivanhoe, Exeter and Lindmore. These districts surround the KDWCD along the north and east borders. Most of the districts are sloped ranging from 1 to 30 percent and have some form of shallow hardpan. Adobe clay is commonly found on the smooth valley plain near the foothills with coarser materials along current or old streambeds.

2.4.1 CVHM Well Log Texture

Maps prepared from the available extent of the CVHM percent coarse material data based on the upper 200 feet of well logs in the Primary KBWQA area were reviewed. The maps were based on 50-foot increments and are included in as Figure 2-4, Figure 2-5, Figure 2-6, and Figure 2-7. For location references, see Figure 1-1.

Coarse grain materials are indicated at the 0 to 50 foot interval at the mouth of the Kaweah River outlet and at a couple of other points along the current St. Johns and Kaweah River footprints; development with increasing depth of a coarse material paleo-channel near the mouth of the current Yokohl Creek; and general coarsening with depth towards the west.




Fine grain materials are indicated at all intervals at the Twin Buttes area to the northeast and the Exeter, Cairns Corner, Tulare, and Lindsay areas to the south and southeast.

The interval with the overall coarsest material is the 50 to 100 foot depth. The finest material in the western area occurs in the shallowest 0 to 50 foot interval with the eastern areas generally consistently of fine materials at all depths unless located at the Kaweah River or Yokohl Creek mouths.

2.4.2 Supplemental Area Regional Geologic Setting

The Sierra Nevada Mountain range, partially located within the KBWQA Supplemental Area, is the result of initial and continued uplifting of the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. As illustrated in Figure 2-8, the area is predominately plutonic rocks of the Mesozoic era, interspersed with outcrops of mixed rocks of pre-Cambrian to Mesozoic era. Portions of the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks are located in the uppermost elevations of the area.

Lake Kaweah is centrally located near the western border. Small areas of Quaternary alluvium are located up- and down-stream of the lake, with larger areas along the foothill borders.

2.4.3 Soil and Soil Surface Characterization

Due to the differences in their formation and topography, the soils in the Primary and Supplemental Areas display different characteristics. Soils in the Primary Area are generally finer while the Supplemental Area soils are sandier with sporadic rock outcroppings as illustrated in Figure 2-9. These textures can be further defined by soil type as detailed in Figure 2-10.

The predominant soil texture in the Primary KBWQA Area is loam at approximately 52 percent. Fine sandy loam (22 percent) and sandy loam (13 percent) located near streams and channels make up another 35 percent. The remaining 13 percent includes more course grained soils, and finer grained materials located along the eastern, north central, and south central boundaries. In general, the areas to the east are more subject to hardpan with coarser soils along the riverbeds atop the alluvial fan and clay deposits off to either side of the fan.

The portion of the Supplemental Area with soil information available is mostly comprised of sandy loam (40 percent), coarse sandy loam (23 percent), loam (13 percent), and rock outcrop (8 percent). Soils that are more coarse are found along the primary river and stream pathways. The number of rock outcroppings increases to the east of the area with information available.

Areas of higher permeability are located within the study area near ancient and modern stream channels, consistent with the CVHM well log texture analysis. Areas of higher runoff potential are located predominantly in the northeastern area and along the eastern border (Figure 2-11).

The steepest portion of the KBWQA is in the Supplemental Area, with slopes as high as 20 to 50 percent. The land surface becomes more level as the foothills transition to the valley floor with the Primary Area having little slope and topography.




2.5 Hydrogeology

2.5.1 Groundwater Levels

Recent depth to groundwater was determined based on the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Groundwater Information Center (GIC) data for Spring 2015 (Figure 2-12) and Spring 2016 (Figure 2-13). In general, the depth-to-water is shallowest in the northeast and southeast with an overwhelmingly southwest regional direction of flow (Figure 2-14 and Figure 2-15). A groundwater ridge occurs along the Kaweah River footprint with troughs on either side. The deepest groundwater is found in the western area at or near the Tulare County border. The affects of pumping are apparent in groundwater contours. The Supplemental Area has limited data available, but it can be assumed that, other than within fractured bedrock, groundwater will generally follow the topography.

The Terminus Dam was constructed in 1962, which coincides with a regional drop in groundwater levels of 40 feet or more. Recent high water years can be noted in the mid- to late-1980s with water levels generally not reaching those elevations in the years following. The State of California is currently in a drought state of emergency and the Central Valley, in particular, is in a severe overdraft condition, as is apparent in hydrographs for valley floor wells. Groundwater levels have generally been in decline since 1999 with a recent decline of up to 100 feet in some wells since approximately 2008.

Recently, greater than normal rains fell in the Central Valley in 2016 due to El Niño and La Niña weather conditions; however in general, the amount of rain was not sufficient to significantly reduce the amount of groundwater pumping or to alleviate overdraft conditions.

2.5.2 Water Bearing Zones

As discussed in the GAR and further detailed in the referenced Geology, Hydrology, and Quality of Water in the Hanford-Visalia Area by M. G. Croft and G. V. Gordon, 1968, the formations underlying the Kaweah primary area can be described by geologic unit as follows in increasing depth order:

• Flood basin deposits from near surface to approximately 50 feet thick with unconfined groundwater of poor quality. Generally perched groundwater.

• Younger alluvium approximately 50 feet thick which is generally unsaturated except in the eastern-most portions.

• Oxidized older alluvium approximately 600 feet thick with unconfined and semi-confined groundwater of calcium or magnesium carbonate type. Considered to be a portion of the major producing aquifer for the Kaweah primary area.

• Reduced older alluvium approximately 1,000 feet thick with semi-confined and confined groundwater of sodium bicarbonate type. Considered to be a portion of the major producing aquifer for the Kaweah primary area.

• Lacustricne and marsh deposits up to 3,000 feet thick with confined groundwater occurring of poor water quality.

Based on information presented in the California Groundwater Bulletin 118 for the Kaweah Subbasin, total depths of municipal/irrigation wells in the Kaweah Subbasin range from 100 to 500 feet; however, the data was last updated in 2004. Similarly, information provided in the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA), Domestic Well Project, Groundwater Quality Data Report, Tulare County Focus Area (California State Water Resources Control Board, 2013) indicate that domestic wells in the Kaweah Subbasin tend to be completed to total depths of 100 to 300 feet, although some wells




are completed to depths as great as 450 feet. Both of these general depth ranges are reasonably corroborated with the Fugro Report’s cross sections included in the CGQMP as Appendix B: Fugro Cross Sections. In general, deeper wells are to the west and shallower wells are to the east.

Based on the Fugro Report’s cross sections, most wells completed shallower than approximately 400 feet are completed within the oxidized older alluvium (Qooo) and are unconfined. Towards the foothills, the Qooo decreases in thickness and eventually pinches out however most wells are completed correspondingly shallower. Some wells to the west are landed in the E-Clay (QTl – lacustrine or marsh deposits, while some deeper wells throughout and most easterly wells are partially or completely screened in the older reduced alluvium (Qoar). While well identifications are clear in the Fugro Report’s cross sections, the well types are not specified. According to the GAMA and Bulletin 118 information, most wells are likely completed within the Qooo formation (Fugro West, Inc., 2007).

Wells either without or with damaged or improperly constructed surface seals may provide vertical preferential pathways for vertical migration between aquifers through the materials filling the annular space between the well casing and the formation walls. Additionally, wells with perforated intervals emplaced across, or both above and below, semi- or confining layers may also provide a vertical preferential pathway. When aquifers of differing water qualities are connected in this manner, water quality may be affected in both aquifers.

2.5.3 Recharge

Recharge areas within the Primary valley floor area were identified and mapped using a combination of publicly available resources. To assess relative recharge rates, identified recharge areas were layered over CVHM vertical conductivity (VK) layers of varying thicknesses (Figure 2-16). The fastest VK values are included in the areas near the mouths of the Kaweah River and the current Yokohl Creek and extending northwestward. The slowest VK values include the areas to the north and south of the two alluvial fans (Kaweah and Yokohl creek locations) and the better part of the south-central and southeast areas.

The most significant recharge area is at and near the mouth of the Kaweah River due to the shallowest groundwater at less than 50 feet and the upgradient position to the majority of the KBWQA area. The second most significant recharge area is the northwest-southeast trending belt of relatively high VK values and multiple surface waterways and impoundments. Depth-to-water in this area ranges from 50 to 150 feet and less of the KBWQA area is downgradient.

2.6 Hydrology

As described in the following sections, the hydrology of the KBWQA area is chiefly comprised of the Kaweah River and its tributaries. A schematic of the natural and constructed distributary system within the KBWQA is illustrated in Figure 2-17 which identifies surface water inputs to agricultural conveyance system including multiple turnouts from the Friant-Kern Canal (Kaweah Delta Conservation District, 2010).

2.6.1 Kaweah River

The Kaweah River originates in the Sierra Nevada Mountains at an elevation of more than 12,000 feet and drains a watershed area of about 630 square miles above the foothill line. Terminus Reservoir, located about 20 miles east of Visalia, has a tributary drainage area of about 560 square miles and




produces about 95 percent of the total runoff of the watershed. Dry (Limekiln) Creek and Yokohl Creek are tributaries entering the Kaweah River below Terminus Reservoir. Dry Creek has a sufficient amount of runoff generated to add to the flow of the Kaweah River, at least in the spring months, in all years. Yokohl Creek often does not flow year round and only has sufficient volume to reach the Kaweah system in years of above-normal precipitation.

Water in the Kaweah River is largely retained within the KDWCD and only in infrequent years of exceptionally large runoff are there any flows to the Tulare Lakebed. Since completion of Terminus Dam and Reservoir in 1962, seasonal storage of Kaweah River flows has been provided, which assists in regulation of runoff for irrigation demand schedules. Other than maintenance of a minimum pool for recreation, no carryover storage is provided in the reservoir.

At McKays Point, the Kaweah River divides into the St. Johns River and Lower Kaweah River branches. Water is diverted from the St. Johns and Lower Kaweah Rivers and distributed through a complex system of natural channels and canals owned or operated by numerous agencies and entitlement holders within the Kaweah River Basin, all of which have established rights to the use of water from the Kaweah River.

Flows in the Kaweah River have been continuously measured since 1903 at gauging stations near Three Rivers, located about 7 miles upstream from Terminus Reservoir. Completion of Terminus Dam and Reservoir in 1962 required the relocation of an existing gauging station and the establishment of two new upstream stations: 1) Kaweah River at Three Rivers, and 2) South Fork of Kaweah River near Three Rivers. The annual totals of measured flows at these two sites after 1962 continue the long-term record of Kaweah River near Three Rivers. During the period of record from 1903-04 through 1999-2000, the average annual flow was 432,928 AF, ranging from a minimum of 93,400 AF in 1976-77 to a maximum of 1,402,000 AF in 1982-83.

2.6.2 Creeks and Streams

Along with Dry and Yokohl Creeks, there are additional foothill watersheds (Sand Creek, Stokes Mountain, Cottonwood Creek and Lewis Creek) that have the potential to generate runoff which reaches the valley floor. These runoff conditions only exist during years of above normal precipitation conditions and/or during times of foothill-related flood conditions.

Flows from Sand Creek and Cottonwood Creek, if they exist in sufficient volume, intercept the Kaweah River system in the reach of Cross Creek just east of Highway 99. Flows from these watersheds are only sufficient in volume to reach Cross Creek on an approximate once-in-ten year basis. Flows from Stokes Mountain impact only the local valley floor below the watershed. The principal impact is on the Friant-Kern Canal and the Redbanks area, located northeast of Ivanhoe.

The last foothill-level watershed with any potential impact on the valley floor is that of Lewis Creek. Lewis Creek enters the valley floor in the Lindsay area and courses to the northwest before eventually turning west- and southwesterly. The natural channel on the valley floor has been eliminated and replaced with a man-made channel that is directed principally along property lines, eventually entering into the distribution system of the Farmers Ditch Company in the area of the Herbert Preserve, located southeasterly of Spinks Corner. Actions on the lands of the Herbert Preserve by the Sequoia Riverlands Trust are designed to allow Lewis Creek water to spread across the Trust property for beneficial use purposes and to mitigate downstream damage.




2.6.3 Friant-Kern Canal

The Friant-Kern Canal (Canal) flows from north to south near the eastern edge of the valley floor, providing irrigation water for several federal water contractors in Tulare and Kings County. Surrounding lands slope gently from east to west. The KBWQA exercises no authority over the Canal water districts, and customers that receive water from the Canal within the KBWQA primarily have either earthen channel or piped distribution systems. At the southernmost point on the Canal, it interties with the Kern River. During high flow events, excess Friant-Kern water is diverted into the Kern River channel in Bakersfield. The water is used for groundwater recharge in the Kern River channel or re-diverted downstream into large groundwater recharge facilities on the Kern River Fan (e.g., Kern Water Bank, Pioneer Banking Project, City of Bakersfield’s 2800 Acres).




Table 2-1. Primary Area Temperature and Precipitation Summary

Primary Area Temperature and Precipitation Summary Based on Average Weather for Visalia, California 1981 to 2010

http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/visalia/california/united-states/usca1204

Month Average High Temperature in °F

Average Low Temperature in °F

Average Precipitation (in)

January 55 39 1.93 February 61 42 1.85 March 67 46 2.01 April 73 49 0.94 May 82 56 0.35 June 89 62 0.16 July 94 67 0 August 93 65 0 September 88 60 0.16 October 78 53 0.59 November 64 44 1.22 December 55 38 1.73

Annual Average/Total: 74.9 51.8 10.94




Table 2-2. Supplemental Area Temperature and Precipitation Summary

Supplemental Area Temperature and Precipitation Summary Based on Average Weather for Three Rivers, California 1981 to 2010

http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/three-rivers/california/united-states/usca1555

Month Average High Temperature in °F

Average Low Temperature in °F

Average Precipitation (in)

January 57 36 4.69 February 61 38 4.49 March 66 41 4.21 April 72 44 2.24 May 82 51 0.91 June 90 58 0.31 July 97 64 0.08 August 96 63 0.04 September 90 58 0.47 October 78 49 1.26 November 64 40 2.68 December 56 35 3.70

Annual Average/Total: 75.8 48.1 25.08




Table 2-3. Crops by Acreage

2015 Crops by Acreage

Crop KBWQA Area Acres Percent of Cropped Area

Citrus 48,354 35.8%

Walnuts & Pecans 26,520 19.6%

Pistachios 10,311 7.6%

Almonds 9,809 7.3%

Alfalfa 6,399 4.7%

Grapes 5,931 4.4%

Corn 5,570 4.1%

Cotton 4,995 3.7%

Olives 4,002 3.0%

Stone Fruit 3,976 2.9%

Grains (Small) 3,788 2.8%

Note: Information based on Kaweah ILRP database compiled from information in 2015 farm evaluation document.




Figure 2-1. Major Hydrology




Figure 2-2. Groundwater Basins




Figure 2-3. Crop Map




Figure 2-4. CVHM Well Log Texture at Depth 0-50 feet
















Figure 2-8. Geology Map




Figure 2-9. Soil Texture




Figure 2-10. Soil Type




Figure 2-11. Runoff Potential




Figure 2-12. Spring 2015 Depth to Groundwater




Figure 2-13. Spring 2016 Depth to Groundwater




Figure 2-14. Spring 2015 Groundwater Surface Elevation




Figure 2-15. Spring 2016 Groundwater Surface Elevation




Figure 2-16. Vertical Conductivity and Potential Recharge Areas




Source: Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, November 2010

Figure 2-17. Kaweah River System Schematic

Section Three: GAR Findings



3 GAR Findings In part, the purpose of the GAR was to provide the technical basis informing the scope and level of effort for implementation of the General Order’s groundwater monitoring and implementation provisions. The KBWQA’s GAR findings are summarized below. Figures for this section are as published in the GAR.

3.1 Vulnerability Assessment

As defined in the General Order, a groundwater high vulnerability area is:

1. Where known groundwater quality impacts exist or where conditions make groundwater more vulnerable to impacts from irrigated agricultural activities; or

2. Areas that meet any of the following, which require the preparation of a Groundwater Quality Management Plan:

a. There is a confirmed exceedance (considering applicable averaging periods) of a water quality objective or applicable water quality trigger limit in a groundwater well and irrigated agriculture may cause or contribute to the exceedance;

b. The Basin Plan requires development of a groundwater quality management plan for a constituent or constituents discharged by irrigated agriculture; or

c. The Executive Officer determines that irrigated agriculture may be causing or contributing to a trend of degradation of groundwater that may threaten applicable Basin Plan beneficial uses.

3.1.1 High Vulnerability Designation

HVAs were identified using the following criteria:

• Recent detections within the last 10 years of groundwater quality indicating a condition of pollution defined as maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceedances in nitrates or pesticides;

• Longer-term detections of groundwater quality indicating a condition of active degradation defined as statistically significant up-trending nitrate detections; and

• Groundwater impacted areas upgradient of a Disadvantaged Community (DAC) or small water system that is reliant on groundwater.

Cropped or potentially cropped areas were classified as located within an HVA if at least 50 percent of a parcel is within a designated CVHM grid cell identified as containing adverse water quality conditions. Groundwater quality attributes of each well are assigned to the entire individual 1-mile CVHM grid cell. Additionally, areas within identified groundwater impact cells that are located directly upgradient of a DAC or small water system that is reliant on groundwater are specifically included in the HVA designation.

Spatial gaps were then assessed for exclusion from the HVAs based on the following criteria:

• Groundwater quality testing over the most recent 10 year time frame indicating a lack of groundwater impacts from nitrate or pesticides;

• Endangered species critical habitat;




• Residential or industrial; and

• Other incompatible land use areas such as gravel mining, landfills, wetlands, and water storage or waterways.

If not excluded from the HVA due to the above criteria, the remaining cropped or potentially cropped areas in both the Primary and Supplemental Areas were assessed for inclusion in or exclusion from the HVAs. Ground-truthing was performed in the Primary Area by a professional geologist and an agricultural specialist in instances where data was insufficient to make a determination.

Water quality data used for the analysis in the GAR did not include information regarding depth to groundwater or the monitored water bearing zone of the collected samples. At the time of GAR completion this associated information was not publicly available. Wells with known depth were used where available in the database. Well logs available in the Fugro report do not have associated groundwater quality data. The KBWQA understands that legislation has since been enacted which allows public access to well logs upon request to the DWR. This information will help in determining areas where first encountered groundwater quality is potentially impacted by irrigated agriculture. Applicable well logs and associated groundwater quality data may be included in future updates to the CGQMP and GAR.

To determine the appropriate data for assessment of HVA designation, the KBWQA prioritized data which would have a comparable timeframe with other relevant data sets such as crop type, irrigation methods, farming practices, land management practices, and water quality. Sufficient water quality data appropriate for analysis was available by using data publicly available from 2003 through the time of GAR development. The KBWQA worked to reduce the effect of additive margins of error in cross comparison of data sets, as well as data used for prioritization of HVAs by selecting data that was no more than 10 years old at the time of GAR development. The resultant data set is considered to be the baseline water quality of the KBWQA. It is anticipated that as new data becomes publicly available, it will be evaluated and incorporated every five years in revisions to the GAR, as required by the General Order. Over time this data will continue to be cross referenced with other data sets (pesticide use records, irrigation methods, crop type, etc.), creating a matrix of water quality data and associated land use and management practices to increase accuracy of areas defined as high vulnerability. This combined data set will be critical in future submittals to further identify areas where water quality may have been impacted by irrigated agriculture, aiding in the development of work plans and management plans. This combined data set will also aide the KBWQA in properly identifying growers in the greatest need of improved management practices in order to most effectively execute management plans.

DACS and other small water systems reliant on groundwater were automatically included as HVAs so recharge potential up-gradient of these areas is inconsequential. For prioritization, DACS and other small water systems reliant on groundwater were afforded the most heavily weighted designation of ‘critical parameter’, ensuring these areas would be included in the first tier to require regulatory activity.

Recharge was not a consideration for the HVA designation process but was part of a weighted set of factors to delineate prioritization. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the GAR, the most important groundwater vulnerability parameters regarding recharge were listed in the prioritization matrix (GAR Table 7-1) as NRCS hydraulic conductivity by soil type, CVHM VK, and farm location upgradient of a designated recharge area.

Although natural channels were selected for inclusion as a designated recharge area, the horizontal and vertical conductivity provided two-thirds of the weighting regarding recharge so would have been the primary weighting factors regarding recharge for the prioritization process.




The assessment criteria results, after resolving the data gaps, are illustrated in Figure 3-1. DACs and small water systems that are reliant on groundwater are illustrated as black-hashed polygons with cropped or potentially cropped areas underlain as dark gray. Identified CVHM grids cells having nitrate or pesticide water quality exceedances are illustrated as pink areas, uptrending nitrate cells are identified as yellow-hashed, and non-impacted areas identified as green. These were overlain by the groundwater elevation contour lines from spring 2014 (which are reasonably consistent with historical groundwater contour maps). Cropped or potentially cropped areas with nitrate or pesticide groundwater quality impacts (both exceedances and uptrending), that are located within 0.75 miles upgradient of a DAC or small water system that is reliant on groundwater, are included as HVA properties. To augment this designation, these particular HVA properties were additionally designated as the highest priority. The final Designated High Vulnerability Areas encompassing all the cropped or potentially cropped Primary and Supplemental Areas are illustrated in Figure 3-2.

Salinity in groundwater can originate from natural sources, sewage, runoff and deep percolation from urban and agricultural areas, industrial wastewater, and oilfield produced water. Complex hydrogeologic processes often dissolve, transport, dilute, concentrate, and/or precipitate salts. Variations in surface water availability affect recharge with higher quality surface water and subsequent dilution of salts. The sources of applied irrigation water, and the leaching fraction applied, determine the steady-state salinity of percolating water.

The application of water to support agriculture leads to an increase in concentration of solutes in excess water of the rootzone. Generally, improper drainage can result in elevated levels of salts leaching into groundwater. Localized areas of elevated salinity can occur upgradient where inadequate leaching, flushing, and outflow occur due to local drainage impairments such as poorly drained soil or limited surface drainage toward the historic Tulare Lake. The Kaweah River is the primary source of recharge to the area, allowing for some dilution of concentrated salts in groundwater.

Many permanent crops have converted to drip or micro-irrigation systems and application rates are being more closely matched to a crop’s water usage, reducing the amount of water that can potentially be lost to runoff or below the root zone as deep percolation.

Pesticides, and elevated nitrates and salinity have been identified as constituents which do not currently meet applicable groundwater quality objectives defined for basins underlying the KBWQA. As described in the CGQMP, all areas identified in the GAR as HVAs are to be incorporated in the management plan. The CGQMP also outlines the limitations of available data, the physical barriers to representative groundwater monitoring, and the complex dynamics of decreasing the potential to leach nitrate from irrigated agriculture.

Additionally the Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) is an initiative to identify salinity management strategies that will achieve a salt balance and keep agriculture economically viable. CV-SALTShas been a stakeholder driven process, in coordination with the RWQCB. The KBWQA is a contributor to the Central Valley Salinity Coalition and the CV-SALTS process and will remain actively involved in this important stakeholder process.




Figure 3-1. Impacted Groundwater




Figure 3-2. Designated High Vulnerability Areas

Section Four: Trend Monitoring Network Design



4 Trend Monitoring Network Design

4.1 Purpose

The primary purpose of groundwater trend monitoring in the KBWQA area is to monitor long-term regional groundwater quality trends as they relate to potential influences from irrigated agriculture and regional changes to agricultural practices.

Design of the GTMP takes into account multiple considerations including:

• The types of agricultural crops grown within the KBWQA area, particularly those with the most irrigated agricultural acreage; and

• Hydrogeologic conditions, such as relative groundwater depths, groundwater flow direction in relation to DACs, dairy land, and significant recharge areas as determined in the GAR.

A significant time-lag between the actions on the land surface and the resulting change in the underlying aquifer likely exists. In general, greater depths to groundwater correlate with longer lag times in transport time from surface to groundwater. Additionally, correlating changes in irrigated agricultural practices to changes in groundwater quality is further complicated by legacy nitrate residing in the unsaturated zone (from historic agricultural practices) acting as an ongoing source to groundwater.

4.2 Approach

Monitoring areas are not defined by specific acreage or location, but rather by specific criteria, Potential general monitoring areas were initially selected by reviewing crop maps for the largest crop types (by acreage) and selecting areas near each of the crop types that were:

1) Located above relatively shallow groundwater;

2) Generally upgradient of a DAC or within relatively close proximity of a DAC;

3) Located in both low vulnerability areas (LVAs) and HVAs;

4) In areas with greater potential recharge as documented in the GAR;

5) Generally representative of NRCS soil textural classes present in the KBWQA area; and

6) Not downgradient from an area where other land application practices would potentially lead to water quality issues that could not be differentiated from those resulting from farming practices.

Once the initial crop type monitoring locations were selected, additional monitoring areas were selected so that areas with deeper groundwater were represented. Each of these factors is described in greater detail in the following subsections.

4.2.1 Major Crops by Acreage

As summarized in Table 2-3, 11 crop types comprise approximately 95% of cropped acreage in the KBWQA area. In selecting proposed monitoring areas, efforts were made to ensure that each of the 11 most prominent crop types were represented in the trend monitoring network design. Crop types with the largest acreage were considered more strongly than areas with minor crop types with respect to monitoring network coverage. As a result, more proposed monitoring areas were selected from crops




with the largest acreage (i.e. citrus, and walnuts and pecans). A crop map with overlayed proposed monitoring areas is presented as Figure 4-1.

4.2.2 Hydrogeologic Conditions

As shown on Figure 2-13, groundwater depths in the primary KBWQA area ranged from approximately 30 feet in the northeast to 250 feet in the southwest during the Spring of 2016. As shown on Figure 2-14 (Spring 2015) and Figure 2-15 (Spring 2016), groundwater flows to the southwest regionally across the KBWQA Primary Area. In an effort to mitigate uncertainties related to the temporal disconnects of changes in agricultural practices, versus changes in groundwater quality, areas with relatively shallow groundwater were considered more strongly over areas with deeper groundwater. As a result there are a larger number of proposed monitoring locations in areas with shallower groundwater depths (i.e. eastern portion of the KBWQA Primary area).

In order to balance out the distribution of monitoring areas in the KBWQA Primary Area, several additional proposed monitoring locations were selected in the central portions where groundwater depths are greater. In selecting these added proposed monitoring areas, consideration was made to ensure that they were upgradient of the extensive dairy lands that are present in the western half of the Primary Area. This will lessen the possibility that groundwater quality data being collected in the proposed monitoring areas is influenced by other regulated dischargers. Additional information regarding dairy lands and their potential effects on the proposed trend monitoring network design is included in the following section.

Proposed monitoring areas overlaid on a Spring 2016 depth to groundwater map is included as Figure 4-2. Proposed monitoring areas overlaid on a Spring 2016 groundwater surface elevation map is included as Figure 4-3. Table 4-1 is a tabulated summary of the factors reviewed to select proposed monitoring areas.

4.2.3 Disadvantaged Communities

In selecting the proposed monitoring areas, consideration was given to find areas that were representative of conditions both upgradient and downgradient of DACs or small water systems that are relient on groundwater. A map depicting DACs and proposed monitoring areas is presented as Figure 4-1. A tabulated summary of the monitoring area selection factors, including proposed monitoring area hydrologic relationships to DACs is provided in Table 4-1.

4.2.4 High Vulnerability Areas and Low Vulnerability Areas

In the GAR, designations of HVAs were made based on a combination of parameters, described in Section 3 of this GTMP. In vetting the proposed monitoring areas, consideration was made to include HVAs and LVAs, as determined in the GAR, in order to ensure that the trend monitoring network design was as representative as possible. A map depicting the proposed monitoring areas overlayed on the HVAs and LVAs, as defined in the GAR, is presented as Figure 4-6. A tabulated summary of the monitoring area selection factors is provided in Table 4-1.




4.2.5 Areas of Potential Recharge

Analysis completed as part of the GAR evaluated areas of most significant recharge. These areas were defined as; the Kaweah River and the northwest-southeast trending belt of relatively high vertical conductivity in the region of the cities of Exeter, Farmersville, Visalia, and multiple DACs and small water systems reliant on groundwater. In vetting the proposed monitoring areas, consideration was given to include areas that are representative of locations estimated to be the most significant areas of recharge but also included areas with less significant recharge.

A map depicting the proposed monitoring areas overlayed on the vertical conductivity and potential recharge areas map from the GAR is presented as Figure 4-4. A tabulated summary of the monitoring area selection factors is provided in Table 4-1.

4.2.6 Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Soil Textures

Surface soil textures can have a significant bearing on the rate of surface water percolation to groundwater, particularly in areas with coarse soils and relatively shallow groundwater. In vetting the proposed monitoring areas, consideration was given to ensure areas were included that were representative of the various surface soil textures present in the KBWQA Primary area. A map depicting NRCS soil textures and proposed monitoring areas is presented as Figure 4-5. A tabulated summary of the monitoring area selection factors is included as Table 4-1.

4.2.7 Irrigation Methods

Irrigation methods were evaluated and found to have significant correlation with the predominant crop types in the Kaweah primarty area. For example, as shown on Figure 4-7, areas with drip or micro irrigation methods correspond to areas of citrus crops (Figure 4-1) and likewise surface irrigation corresponds with the walnut and pecan production areas in the central Kaweah Primary area. Additionally, as shown in Figure 4-7 sprinkler irrigation is sparsely used within the KBWQA. In general, irrigation methods were a secondary concern in vetting the proposed monitoring areas as the type of irrigation method used appears to be heavily influenced by crop type, which was already one of the major factors in selecting monitoring areas.

4.2.8 Dairy Lands

According to RWQCB data, as of 2014 there were approximately 63,712 acres of dairy associated land (dairy facility and manure land application areas) located within the Primary KBWQA area. Dairies are regulated under the RWQCB Order R5-2013-0122 Reissued Waste Discharge Requirements General Order for Existing Milk Cow Dairies (Dairy GO) and are not required to enroll as members of a third-party coalition.

As shown in Figure 4-1, dairy land is prevalent throughout the western and southern portions of the KBWQA Primary Area. In selecting potential monitoring areas, dairy lands were generally avoided as groundwater quality data attributable to irrigated agricultural farming practices would be difficult to differentiate from that of dairy lands. Due to the high density of dairy land in the west and south (as well as the greater groundwater depths), proposed monitoring areas are located more northerly and easterly.




4.3 Proposed Monitoring Areas

Proposed monitoring areas determined utilizing the general screening method described above are illustrated on Figure 4-1. As shown in this figure, monitoring locations have a higher density near the central eastern portion of the Primary Area, with a lower density of locations in the central portions and no monitoring areas proposed west of Highway 99. The proposed monitoring area distribution was highly influenced by several factors including:

• The special distribution of major crop belts such as citrus, and walnuts and pecans;

• The large swaths of dairy land located in the northwest, southwest, and western portions of the Primary Area that were generally avoided as groundwater quality data attributable to general farming practices would be difficult to discern from that of dairy lands;

• The significantly deeper groundwater depths in the western half of the Primary Area that would result in more significant time-lags between the actions on the land surface and the potential resulting changes in groundwater quality; and

• The areas of higher potential recharge, as determined in the GAR, are generally located in the central eastern portion of the Primary Area.

Significant portions of the KBWQA are permanent crops, therefore proposed monitoring areas were defined by predominant crop type. These areas are discussed below.

4.3.1 Citrus

Several monitoring areas are proposed in and around citrus crop zones. As shown on Figure 4-1, Monitoring Areas 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, and 21 are proposed to represent citrus crop zones and associated factors influcing groundwater quality. As shown in Table 4-1, these proposed Monitoring Areas are representative of the hydrogeologic conditions in the Primary KBWQA area, such as relative groundwater depths (i.e., both shallow and deep), inside and outside of areas of high possible recharge, and in areas of differing surface soil textures. Additionally, they are representative of other selection factors such as locations in LVAs and HVAs, relatively close proximity to DACs, and locations both upgradient and downgradient of DACs.

4.3.2 Walnuts and Pecans

As shown on Figure 4-1, Monitoring Areas 10, 18, and 22 are proposed as representative of walnut and pecan crop zones. As shown in Table 4-1, these proposed Monitoring Areas are representative of hydrogeologic conditions in the Primary KBWQA area, such as relative groundwater depths (i.e., both shallow and deep) and in areas with differing soil textures. Additionally, they are representative of other selection factors such as locations in LVAs and HVAs, representing multiple types of irrigation, relatively close proximity to DACs, and locations both upgradient and downgradient of DACs.

4.3.3 Pistachios

As shown on Figure 4-1, Monitoring Areas 7 and 8 are proposed representative areas for pistachio crop zones. As shown in Table 4-1, these proposed Monitoring Areas are representative of the hydrogeologic conditions in the Primary KBWQA area, such as relative groundwater depths (i.e., both shallow and deep), inside and outside of areas of high possible recharge, and in areas of differing surface soil




textures. Additionally, they are representative of other selection factors such as locations in LVAs and HVAs, and locations both upgradient and downgradient of DACs.

4.3.4 Corn

As shown on Figure 4-1, Monitoring Areas 2, 17, 23 and 24 are proposed representative areas for corn crop zones. As shown in Table 4-1, these proposed Monitoring Areas are representative of the hydrogeologic conditions in the Primary KBWQA area, such as relative groundwater depths (i.e., both shallow and deep), inside and outside of areas of high possible recharge, and in areas of differing surface soil textures. Additionally, they are representative of other selection factors such as locations in LVAs and HVAs, representing multiple types of irrigation, relatively close proximity to DACs, and locations both upgradient and downgradient of DACs.

4.3.5 Almonds

As shown on Figure 4-1, Monitoring Areas 11 and 24 are proposed representative areas for almond crop zones. As shown in Table 4-1, these proposed Monitoring Areas are representative of the hydrogeologic conditions in the Primary KBWQA area, such as relative groundwater depths (i.e., both shallow and deep) and in areas of differing surface soil textures. Additionally, they are representative of other selection factors such as locations in LVAs and HVAs, representing multiple types of irrigation, relatively close proximity to DACs, and locations both upgradient and downgradient of DACs.

4.3.6 Small Grains

As shown on Figure 4-1, Monitoring Areas 2, 5, 19, and 24 are proposed representative areas for small grains crop zones. As shown in Table 4-1, these proposed Monitoring Areas are representative of the hydrogeologic conditions in the Primary KBWQA area, such as relative groundwater depths (i.e., both shallow and deep). Additionally, they are representative of other selection factors such as locations in LVAs and HVAs, relatively close proximity to DACs, and locations both upgradient and downgradient of DACs.

4.3.7 Alfalfa

As shown on Figure 4-1, Monitoring Areas 14 and 20 are proposed representative areas for alfalfa crop zones. As shown in Table 4-1, these proposed Monitoring Areas are representative of the hydrogeologic conditions in the Primary KBWQA area, such as inside and outside of areas of high possible recharge, and in areas of differing surface soil textures. Additionally, they are representative of other selection factors such as relatively close proximity to DACs, and locations both upgradient and downgradient of DACs.

4.3.8 Grapes

As shown on Figure 4-1, Monitoring Areas 4 and 13 are proposed representative areas for grape crop zones. As shown in Table 4-1, these proposed Monitoring Areas are representative of the hydrogeologic conditions in the Primary KBWQA area, such as relative groundwater depths (i.e., both shallow and deep) and in areas of differing surface soil textures. Additionally, they are representative of other selection factors such as locations in LVAs and HVAs, and representing multiple types of irrigation.




4.3.9 Olives

As shown on Figure 4-1, Monitoring Areas 1 and 9 are proposed representative areas for olive crop zones. As shown in Table 4-1, these proposed Monitoring Areas are representative of the hydrogeologic conditions in the Primary KBWQA area, such as being in areas of differing surface soil textures. Additionally, they are representative of other selection factors such as locations in LVAs and HVAs.

4.3.10 Cotton

As shown on Figure 4-1, Monitoring Areas 16 and 17 are proposed representative areas for cotton crop zones. As shown in Table 4-1, these proposed Monitoring Areas are representative of the hydrogeologic conditions in the Primary KBWQA area, such as being in areas of differing surface soil textures. Additionally they are representative of other selection factors such as locations in LVAs and HVAs, representing multiple types of irrigation, and relatively close proximitmity to DACs.

4.3.11 Stone Fruit

As shown on Figure 4-1, Monitoring Area 15 is the proposed representative area for stone fruit crop zone. As shown on Table 4-1, this proposed Monitoring Area is representative of relatively shallow groundwater and is both upgradient and within close proximity to DACs. Additionally, the proposed Monitoring Area is representative of surface irrigation, medium to moderately coarse grained soil texture and is in an area of possible high recharge.




Table 4-1. Monitoring Area Selection Factor Summary

Monitoring Area Selection Factor Summary

Monitoring Area Crop Type

DTW Upgradient of DAC Proximity to DAC Vulnerability

Class Possible Area of High

Recharge* NRCS Soil Textural Class Irrigation Type

<40 40-80 80-120 >120 Yes No 0-1 Miles 1-2 Miles 2-5 Miles LVA HVA Yes No Coarse Mod. Coarse Medium Mod. Fine Drip/Micro Sprinkler Surface

1 Olives & Citrus X X X X X X X X 2 Corn & Small Grains X X X X X X X X 3 Citrus X X X X X X X X 4 Grapes X X X X X X X X X X X 5 Small Grains & Citrus X X X X X X X X 6 Citrus X X X X X X X X 7 Pistachios X X X X X X X 8 Pistachios X X X X X X X X 9 Olives X X X X X X X X X 10 Walnuts/Pecans X X X X X X X X X 11 Almonds X X X X X X X X X X 12 Citrus X X X X X X X X X 13 Grapes X X X X X X X X X X 14 Alfalfa X X X X X X X X 15 Stone Fruit X X X X X X X X X 16 Cotton X X X X X X X 17 Corn & Cotton X X X X X X X X X X 18 Walnuts/Pecans X X X X X X X 19 Small Grains X X X X X X X 20 Alfalfa X X X X X X X X 21 Citrus X X X X X X X 22 Walnuts/Pecans X X X X X X X X X 23 Corn X X X X X X X X

24 Corn/Almonds/Small Grains X X X X X X X X

Notes: * = Based on GAR findings of Possible Existing Recharge Locations and areas with highest Vertical Conductivity




Figure 4-1. Crop Map with Proposed Monitoring Areas




Figure 4-2. Spring 2016 Depth to Water with Possible Monitoring Areas




Figure 4-3. Spring 2016 Groundwater Surface Elevation with Possible Monitoring Areas




Figure 4-4. Vertical Conductivity and Possible Monitoring Locations




Figure 4-5. Soil Textural Classes and Possible Monitoring Locations




Figure 4-6. High Vulnerability Areas and Possible Monitoring Locations




Figure 4-7. Dominant Irrigation Category and Possible Monitoring Locations

Section Five: Well Selection Process and Data Acquisition



5 Well Selection Process and Data Acquisition

The KBWQA has outlined below the process for Monitoring Area well selections. One primary and one backup well within each of the proposed Monitorning Areas will be included in the GTMP. Area specific well selections will be conducted in the second phase of this GTMW, pending further feedback from the RWQCB and other coalitions. Well information from those selections will be included in the Phase II workplan, along with the sampling implementation schedule.

The proposed well selection process is detailed below with a flowchart presented as Figure 5-1.

5.1 Identification of Candidate Wells in Proposed Monitoring Areas

An initial pool of candidate wells will be identified in Phase II of the GTMW. Wells in the Proposed Monitoring Areas will be located with the use of aerial photos, member growers farm evaluation data, DWR records, National Water Information Sytem (NWIS) data, other agency data sources, and potentially by roadside surveys.

Based on the requirement to sample shallow groundwater, it is anticipated that domestic wells will comprise a majority of the monitoring network. Irrigation and other production wells would likely pull water from too deep in the aquifer and are not appropriate for this program. Similarly, several potential issues exist with the use of monitoring wells associated with other regulatory programs, where water quality issues from point-sources are likely to exist (e.g. dairies, food processors, etc.) including the difficulty in discerning which water quality issues are potentially attributable to farm practices and not to the intended monitoring location.

Temporal continuity is better assured with domestic well sampling as, in the event the well becomes unusable, there is a high likelihood that a replacement well in the same approximate location would be installed, thus future trend monitoring in that area could continue relatively undisturbed. With other types of wells (e.g. irrigation or monitoring wells for release sites) there is less likelihood that a damaged or dry well would be replaced with a similar well in the same area, which would be a disruption to continued trend monitoring.

As an extra measure of redundancy, backup wells will be selected to ensure continuity of the trend monitoring program.

5.1.1 Evaluation of Existing Monitoring Networks

It is unlikely that existing monitoring wells for other regulatory programs will be selected for inclusion in the trend monitoring network. It is possible that existing water supply wells from larger monitoring networks may be utilized. In the event that acceptable domestic wells cannot be identified in the proposed monitoring areas, existing monitored wells may be evaluated for inclusion as candidate wells.

• Dairy Representative Monitoring Program • Individual Dairy Monitoring Wells • Food Processors • Solid Waste and Wastewater Treatment Facilities • CASGEM – California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring • KDWCD and/or other water/irrigation districts




5.2 Candidate Well Vetting and Selection

Once wells are identified, available well construction information will be gathered from well owners, DWR records, and other sources in order to assess the wells for minimum criteria for potential inclusion in the GTMP. These minimum criteria are discussed below.

5.2.1 Well Location and Land Use

The locations of wells relative to the Proposed Monitoring Areas is considered to be one of the most important factors in determining well suitability for inclusion in the GTMP. Wells within the Proposed Monitoring Areas or within close proximity will be preferred to wells located outside the monitoring areas or at greater distances, allowing the KBWQA to appropriately interpret monitoring results.

The well’s location relative to overlying land use is also an important factor in determining well suitability for inclusion in the GTMP.

5.2.2 Well Type

Domestic style groundwater wells will be considered more favorably in the well selection process based on the requirement to sample shallow groundwater. While other style wells may be considered, depending on other factors, domestic style wells will be preferentially selected over deeper irrigation/production wells or monitoring wells installed for other regulatory programs where water quality issues from point-sources are likely to exist.

5.2.3 Well Construction

Characteristics related to the well construction are a critical consideration in identification of wells suitable for use as part of the trend monitoring network. Important information relating to well construction include well depth, perforated intervals (depths to the top and bottom of perforations), and seal presence, depth, and material. Some of these well details are available in public well databases, however, well details should be confirmed by DWR Well Completion Reports with matching well log and construction details, whenever possible, or through other reliable means, as appropriate. Well construction details and other well information that must be available in order for a well to be included in the pool of candidate wells are listed below.

• Total well depth • Perforated intervals • Well seal information (presence, type of material, length of seal)

5.2.4 Historic Groundwater Quality Records

The existence and duration of historic groundwater quality data is another factor in considering candidate trend monitoring wells, as such data provide a foundation with which to evaluate long-term trends in concentrations especially as they relate to legacy conditions and changing trends and concentrations resulting from agricultural practices. Primary considerations relating to the historic water quality results will be given during the well selection process. For the purposes of identifying potential candidate monitoring wells, the availability of historic nitrate and total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration data will be considered as these parameters are useful indicators of influences from




irrigated agriculture and because they are more widely available than many other water quality parameters.

5.2.5 Well Owner Access Agreement

Wells meeting the minimum criteria as described above will be assessed for well owner agreement to include the wells in the GTMP. If agreement cannot be reached initially, discussions will continue with the well owner. Additionally, other suitable well owners within the same area will be contacted. Discussions with all well owners will continue until an appropriate well is selected and owner agreement is reached.

5.2.6 Field Assessment of Well

Candidate wells with access agreements will be visited by a qualified technician to conduct a field assessment of the well. Observations as to the accessibility of the well for sampling; general well surface condition; and proximity of the well to various influences such as animal enclosures, septic systems, or surface water features will be made. Additionally, the wells will be assessed for water treatment systems, and sampling and access ports.

Wells that are found to be unacceptable during the field assessment will be removed from future consideration for inclusion in the GTMP.

5.3 Candidate Well Ranking System

In the event that multiple candidate wells are identified in a monitoring area, a point system will be established once field assessment criteria have been reviewed. Candidate wells will be ranked on the point system to determine the most appropriate wells to be used as monitoring points in the defined subareas. Point values will be assigned to the wells based on well type, screen interval with respect to groundwater depth, and historic sampling data. Wells and backup wells for each subarea with the highest total point value will then be selected for inclusion in the GTMP.

A summary discussion of the wells selected for inclusion in the GTMP will be included in the second phase of the GTMW. Pertinent well information will be included in the second phase workplan, including:

• Total well depth • Screen intervals (top and bottom perforation depths) • Well seal information (presence, type of material, length of seal) • GPS coordinates • Physical address of the property on which the well is situated, if available • California State well number (if known) • Depth of standing water (static water level), if available




Figure 5-1. Well Selection Process Flow Chart

Section Six: Proposed Implementation



6 Proposed Implementation

6.1 Groundwater Monitoring Schedule

As specified in the General Order, the GTMP network wells will be sampled annually at the same time of the year in approximately June. Sampling will begin upon approval of the Phase II workplan. The analytical constituents for groundwater sampling are presented in the following subsections.

6.1.1 Initial Groundwater Sampling and Survey

As specified in the General Order, GTMP wells and back up monitoring points will initially be sampled for the constituents listed in Table 6-1 below.

Table 6-1. Initial Groundwater Sampling Analyses

Initial Groundwater Sampling Analyses Indicator Parameter Reporting Units Field Measurement Laboratory Analysis Analysis Method

Electrical Conductivity (EC) µmhos/cm Field Instrument

pH pH units Field Instrument Dissolved Oxygen (DO) mg/L Field Instrument

Temperature °C Field Instrument Nitrate as Nitrogen mg/L Method 300.0 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L Method 2540C

General Minerals

Anions (carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, sulfate)

mg/L Method 2320B

General Minerals

Cations (boron, calcium, sodium, magnesium, potassium)

mg/L Method 200.7

Concurrent with the initial monitoring event, a wellhead survey will be performed by a Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (Provost & Pritchard) licensed land surveyor registered in the State of California. A combination of Global Positioning System (GPS) and ground survey methods will be used based on the following datums:

• Horizontal – North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), California Coordinate System of 1983 (CCS83) state plane coordinates.

• Vertical – North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88)

Survey measurements will be reported to +/- 0.01 feet. The survey information will be tabulated and used for hydrograph preparation.




6.1.2 Annual Groundwater Sampling

Following the initial groundwater sampling event, the GTMP wells will be sampled annually for the constituents listed in Table 6-2 below. After the initial sampling event, backup monitoring points will not be sampled every five years.

Table 6-2. Annual Groundwater Sampling Analyses

Annual Groundwater Sampling Analyses Indicator Parameter Reporting Units Field Measurement Laboratory Analysis Analysis Method

Electrical Conductivity µmhos/cm Field Instrument

pH pH units Field Instrument Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Field Instrument Temperature °C Field Instrument Nitrate as Nitrogen mg/L Method 300.0




6.1.3 Five-Year Groundwater Sampling

Every fifth year, the GTMP wells and backup monitoring points will be sampled for the constituents listed in Table 6-3 below.

Table 6-3. Five-Year Groundwater Sampling Analyses

Five-Year Groundwater Sampling Analyses Indicator Parameter Reporting Units Field Measurement Laboratory Analysis Analysis Method

Electrical Conductivity µmhos/cm Field Instrument

pH pH units Field Instrument Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Field Instrument Temperature °C Field Instrument Nitrate as Nitrogen mg/L Method 300.0 Total Dissolved Solids mg/L Method 2540C

General Minerals

Anions (carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, sulfate)

mg/L Method 2320B

General Minerals

Cations (boron, calcium, sodium, magnesium, potassium)

mg/L Method 200.7

6.2 Groundwater Reporting

Annual sampling will occur approximately June of each year. Collected data from each monitoring point will be compiled, which may include pertinent historical groundwater data. The results of trend monitoring are required to be included in the third-party’s Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) and must include a map of the sampled wells, tabulation of the analytical data, and time concentration charts. Groundwater monitoring data are to be submitted electronically to the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker Database and to the RWQCB. Data validity is discussed in the following Section 7 Groundwater Monitoring Procedures. Data sufficiency is addressed in this chapter.

As part of fulfillment of General Order requirements, AMRs will include tabulated water level and water quality data (in Excel) and select trend analyses based on the suitability of the accumulated data set. These analyses may include the following:

• Maps - monitoring point locations, iso-concentration

• Graphs – groundwater elevation, time-series concentration

• Diagrams – Piper, Stiff

• Statistics

• Other analyses as appropriate - to be determined based on findings of the above




Constituents of concern (COCs) may include nitrate, total dissolved solids and select general minerals. Collected data will be reviewed annually and the AMR will include a discussion of monitoring data realative to applicable water quality objectives and groundwater quality management plans.

6.3 Data Sufficiency

Once each annual data set is tabulated, it will be assessed for data sufficiency. Some trend analysis methods require an accumulation of data over time, and others require minimum analytical suites. The sufficiency needs for each analytical tool that is anticipated to be included in the AMRs are detailed below.

6.3.1 Maps

An initial monitoring point location map will be prepared once the GTMP network wells are established. The map will be updated if any of the selected wells are removed from the GTMP.

Iso-concentration maps will be prepared annually for appropriate COCs. A catalogue of maps will develop over time and help to evaluate minimum and maximum concentration areas, as well as changes in those areas over time. The sparse well spatial distribution will likely cause data gaps in these maps however, it is anticipated that the usefulness of the maps will improve over time.

6.3.2 Graphs

Groundwater elevation graphs (hydrographs) will be prepared from the initial monitoring event and updated annually. To be meaningful, these graphs rely on the change in elevation over time. It is anticipated that a minimum of five to ten years of data will be needed to begin to provide a representation of the changes in groundwater levels. It is anticipated that the usefulness of the hydrographs will improve over time.

Time-series concentration graphs will be prepared from the initial sampling results and updated annually. As with the hydrographs, these graphs rely on the change in constituent concentrations over time. A minimum of five to ten years of data will be needed to begin assessing the concentration changes. The usefulness of the time-series graphs will improve over time.

6.3.3 Diagrams

Both Piper and Stiff diagrams require general mineral analyses as will be utilized for the initial monitoring event and every five years thereafter. Prior to diagram preparation, the monitoring data will be reviewed for internal consistency by comparing ionic balances of cations and anions using the commonly accepted standard of ±5%. The initial set of diagrams will be useful for determining water type spatial distribution in the region. Subsequent diagram sets will be compared each five years to assess changes over time. As with the other trend analyses, the accuracy and precision of interpretations will improve with longer data sets.

6.3.4 Statistics

Statistical analysis methods will be used to assess the existence of groundwater quality trends. These analyses are compromised by poor ionic balances, limiting the ability to draw hard and fast conclusions.




To minimize use of invalid datasets in statistical tests, each complete general mineral analytical suite result will be reviewed for internal consistency by comparing ionic balances of cations and anions using the commonly accepted standard of ±5%.

Statistical tests also require certain minimum datasets and most lose power with smaller datasets. Listed are potential statistical analyses that may be performed and the sufficiency needs for each. Interpretation abilities will increase as the well datasets are collected in subsequent years. Initial statistical analysis will be limited and will likely include interwell analysis. Appropriate statistical methods will be used depending on the presence and number of non-detects, and whether the data is parametric.

Table 6-4. Potential Statistical Tests

Potential Statistical Tests Test Purpose Requirements

Dixon’s Test Assess outliers Only recommended on sample sizes up to 25, small datasets may mask outliers

Shewhart CUSUM Control Chart Detection of changes in the dataset Minimum 2 sets Mann-Kendall Trend Minimum 4 sets Theil-Sen Trend slope calculations Minimum 8 sets ANOVA Interwell analysis for spatial variabiity Minimum 4 sets

6.3.5 Other Analyses

Box and whisker plots may be used to help identify outliers on a constituent by constituent basis. A minimum of 4 sets would be needed.

Parametric and non-parametric analyses can be used depending on the dataset.

Section Seven: Groundwater Monitoring Procedures



7 Groundwater Monitoring Procedures

7.1 Well Owner Notification and Coordination

Prior to sampling events, coordination with well owners and tenants will be conducted as necessary in order to provide notification of upcoming monitoring and to provide necessary instructions.

7.2 Water Level Measurement

Prior to each sampling event for a pumping well, the static depth to water will be measured to calculate the elevation of the water surface. Generally, a weighted water level meter will be used to measure the depth to groundwater. All measurements will be recorded to the nearest 0.01 foot from a fixed and identifiable reference point at the top of the well.

7.3 Purging Wells

In order to obtain a representative sample of the groundwater contained within the saturated zone, stagnant water within the well casing and filter material must be removed, and fresh formation water allowed to replace it. Removal of the stagnant water is accomplished by pumping or bailing the water contained within the well. Purged water will be dispersed on site.

Field parameters (pH, temperature, EC, and DO) will be monitored and recorded during the purge operations. Stabilization of pH, temperature, and EC parameters will be indicated by values within 10% of one another for a minimum of three consecutive readings. Field parameters will be measured using a pH meter calibrated to standard buffers, and an EC meter equipped with a thermometer. Field equipment will be standardized at the beginning of each use, according to the manufacturers' specifications and consistent with the Environmental Protection Agency Test Methods SW-846 Manual.

The methodology and procedures used to collect groundwater samples from groundwater wells included in the GTMP may vary depending on the type of each well. Industry standard protocols typically differ for groundwater monitoring wells (i.e., wells installed for the sole purpose of monitoring groundwater), agricultural production wells, and domestic wells. It is anticipated that the wells that will make up the trend monitoring network will be comprised chiefly of domestic wells.

7.3.1 Domestic Wells

Prior to purging and sampling, the condition of the well casing and water supply line(s) will be observed and documented. Collecting samples from a domestic well requires minimal equipment as the groundwater supply system typically includes a pump and pressure tank that can provide a reliable sample stream.

Water bibs closest to the wells and prior to any water treatment units will be used for purging and sampling in order to minimize the amount of piping the water will travel through, reduce purge times, and collect representative samples. As conditions allow, the same sample location at each well will be utilized during each sampling event. Prior to sampling, the wells will be purged by running the nearest available water bib or tap for up to 20 minutes or until a volume of water equal to the volume of the pressure tank has been removed. A hose may be used during purging activities to direct purge water




away from the sampling point but will be removed prior to collecting samples from the water bib. Groundwater samples will then be collected immediately after purging.

7.3.2 Groundwater Monitoring Wells

Prior to each sampling event for a monitoring well, the static depth to water and depth to the bottom of the well will be measured in each monitoring point well. These data will be used to calculate the elevation of the water surface and the required purge volume. Generally, a weighted water level meter will be used to measure the depth to groundwater and bottom-of-well measurements. All measurements will be recorded to the nearest 0.01 foot from a fixed and identifiable reference point at the top of the well.

If groundwater monitoring wells without dedicated purging and sampling devices are used, the monitoring wells will be purged with one or more of the following temporary devices. The purging and sampling devices will be placed near the top of the screened interval to ensure that shallow groundwater is sampled.

• Positive gas-displacement, TeflonTM

and/or stainless steel-housed TeflonTM

bladder pump;

• TeflonTM

or stainless steel bailer with bottom discharge unit;

• Stainless steel submersible pump with galvanized piping;

• Peristaltic pump;

• Centrifugal pump;

• Two-stage air-lift pump (TeflonTM

or stainless steel); or

• Disposable polyethylene bailers with polypropylene check ball.

When purging a low-yield well (one that yields less than three casing volumes prior to being purged to dryness), the well will be purged to dryness twice. When the well recovers the third time, and when it contains a sufficient volume of water for the required analyses, samples will be collected. At no time will a well be purged to dryness if the rate of recharge is such that formation water will cascade down the sides of the casing, or if a purge rate of greater than one-quarter gallon per minute can be maintained.

Groundwater samples will be removed from a monitoring well of moderate- to high-yield only after a minimum of three casing volumes have been purged from the well casing, and purging has been of sufficient duration to result in stabilization of pH, temperature, and EC measurements.

7.3.3 Agricultural Production Wells

If agricultural production wells are used, groundwater samples will be collected from the nearest available water supply valve or discharge opening prior to water treatment systems. Prior to sampling, the pump will be run for a minimum of 30 minutes or until at least three well volumes have been purged from the well.




7.4 Sample Collection

Samples of fresh formation water will be collected only after the appropriate volume of water has been purged from the casing, and field parameters have stabilized. To increase the likelihood that groundwater samples are representative of the groundwater contained within the formation, it is important to minimize physical or chemical alteration of the sample during the collection process.

Samples will be collected in such a manner as to minimize the volatilization of a sample due to agitation and/or transference from pump or bailer to sample container. The sampling flow rates will not exceed the purging process flow rate and will generally be much less. When a bailer is used to retrieve a sample, a bottom discharge unit will be used to minimize volatilization during transference between bailer and sample container.

7.5 Equipment Cleaning

When dedicated purging and sampling equipment is not used, equipment that may come in contact with the sample will be thoroughly cleaned prior to arrival to the project site. Non-disposable bailers and positive gas-displacement bladder pumps will be disassembled, steam-cleaned, rinsed with (steam-distilled) water, and then reassembled. Wires, hoses and connectors will be cleaned in a similar manner.

7.6 Equipment List

Depending on the type of well to be sampled, equipment from the below lists may be used during purging and sampling operations.

7.6.1 Decontamination Equipment

• 2 – 5-gallon buckets

• Simple Green or other non-phosphate detergent

• Small head long handled scrub brush

• 1 ½” or 2” bottle brush

7.6.2 Purging Equipment

• Waterra Powerlift II actuator, Grundfos pump, or disposable bailers

• Horiba multimeter, or similar, with calibration solutions

• Solinst water level indicator or similar

• DO meter or other as needed

• extra Waterra tubing, footer valves, and surge block if using the Waterra system

• 2 – 5-gallon buckets

• Generator with gas

• Extension cord




• Tie-down strap or bungie

• Tool bucket (wrenches, pliers, all thread, zip ties)

• Latex gloves

7.6.3 Sampling Equipment

• Sample bottles

• Gallon self-sealing plastic bags

• Ice chest with ice

• Eye and ear protection

• Field camera

• Clipboard or forms box with the following:

• Client contact information

• Site map with well locations

• Field purge records

• Daily field records

• Waterproof fine point marker and ball point pens

• Sample labels

• Chain-of-custody forms

7.7 Field Sampling Log

A field sampling log will be maintained for each sampling event and will include the following:

• Sampler's identification;

• Well identification;

• Climatic conditions;

• Depth to water prior to purging;

• Type of purging and sampling device;

• Purging rate and volume;

• Relative well yield volume;

• Field parameter measurements (pH, temperature, EC, DO);

• Type and number of samples collected; and

• Date and time collected.




7.8 Sample Packaging and Transport

7.8.1 Sample Labeling

Sample containers will be labeled in the field. Labels will contain the following information:

• Consultant's identification;

• Project number or identification;

• Sampler's identification;

• Date and time of collection; and

• Sample identification.

7.8.2 Sample Transport

All samples will be delivered to the laboratory within a time frame to allow for analyses within the appropriate holding times. Sealed sample containers will not be opened by other than the laboratory personnel who will perform the requested analyses.

7.8.2.1 Custody Seal

If it is necessary for samples or sample chests to leave the field technician’s control prior to delivery to the laboratory, such as for shipment by a common carrier, a custody seal will be placed on each sample container and/or sample chest to discourage tampering during transportation. The custody seal will contain the sampler's signature, and the date and time the seal was emplaced.

7.8.2.2 Chain of Custody

In order to document and trace sample possession, a positive signature chain-of-custody record will accompany the sample through the laboratory analyses. The completed chain-of-custody record will be included in the laboratory's final report.

7.8.2.3 Sample Analyses

Groundwater samples will be analyzed by a California Certified Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) laboratory.

Requests for sample analyses will be made in writing and will be included as part of the chain-of-custody record.

7.9 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

7.9.1 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Travel and equipment blanks will be collected as appropriate and handled and transported in the same manner as the groundwater samples. Travel blanks prepared by the laboratory will be utilized at a rate of one per ice chest. Equipment blanks will be collected from non-dedicated sampling equipment will




be collected at a rate of one per sampling episode by circulating steam-distilled water through cleaned sampling equipment during the final rinse stage.

7.9.2 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Duplicate samples may be collected at a total duplicate rate of 20 percent for the project. Blind duplicate samples will be delivered to the primary laboratory to verify the reliability of the laboratory's analyses.

Split samples may be collected at the discretion of the project manager. The split sample will be handled the same as the primary sample, but will be delivered to a second laboratory. A comparison of the split sample results will be made to further evaluate the primary laboratory's performance.

Duplicate and/or split samples collected from a single well will be collected from a single casing volume when possible. When a single casing volume is insufficient, samples will be collected in as rapid a succession as possible.

Quality assurance/quality control sample analytical data will be used to monitor the laboratory performance, sampling technique, and as indicators of potential sample analyses or sample collection anomalies.

For general minerals analysis, a cation/anion balance will be calculated by the laboratory as an error check using the commonly accepted standard of ±5%.

Section Eight: Limitations



8 Limitations The evaluations of groundwater conditions and water supply submitted in this workplan are based upon the data obtained from a review of generally available geologic literature for the subject areas. The validity of the opinions, findings, and recommendations presented in this workplan are based on the assumptions that the data reviewed and referenced are valid, accurate, and correct.

As conditions change due to natural processes, climatic conditions or human intervention on or adjacent to the properties within the region, or changes occur in the nature or design of the subject areas, or if substantial time lapse between the date of this workplan and the start of work in the subject area, the findings and opinions contained in our workplan will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by Provost & Pritchard and the findings and opinions contained in the workplan are modified or verified in writing.

Judgments leading to our opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are made without a complete knowledge of the subsurface conditions. No assessment can eliminate uncertainty or all risk regarding site conditions.

The workplan has been prepared in a manner consistent with the standards of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession practicing under similar conditions in the geographic vicinity (Tulare County) and at the time the services will be performed. Regulations and professional standards applicable to Provost & Pritchard’s services are continually evolving. Techniques are, by necessity, often new and relatively untried. Different professionals may reasonably adopt different approaches to similar problems. Therefore, no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, is included in Provost & Pritchard’s scope of service.

Section Nine: References



9 References Anderson, F.M. A Strategic Study in the Mount Diablo Range of California. California Academy of Science,

Proc. 3d ser, v.2, p. 181, 1905. Quoted in Fugro West, Inc. Water Resources Investigation of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. Prepared for Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, December 2003, Revised July 2007.

California Department of Water Resources. “Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Maps and GIS Data.” ArcGIS Mapping Tool, under Integration Regional Water Management Grants. http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/resourceslinks.cfm.

California Department of Water Resources. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Update 2003. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/report2003.cfm

California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. “Information for Public Drinking Water Systems.” (Formerly California Department of Public Health program.) http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/publicwatersystems.shtml.

California State Water Resources Control Board. “Hydrogeologically Vulnerable Areas Map.” Updated March 2011.

California State Water Resources Control Board. Communities that Rely on a Contaminated Groundwater Source for Drinking Water. California Water Boards Report to the Legislature. Table 8.1, January 2013. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gama/ab2222/docs/ab2222.pdf

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. “Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, 2012.” http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/irrigated_lands.

Croft, M.G. and G.V. Gordon. Hydrology, and Quality of Water in the Hanford-Visalia Area, San Joaquin Valley, California. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources, 1968. Quoted in Fugro West, Inc. Water Resources Investigation of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. Prepared for Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, December 2003, Revised July 2007.

Davis, G. H., Green, J.H., Olmstead, S.H., and D.W Brown. Groundwater Conditions and Storage Capacity in the San Joaquin Valley, California. Water Supply Paper 1469, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, p 287, 1959.

Department of Water Resources. “California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Database.” State of California. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/casgem.

Department of Water Resources. “Groundwater Information Center, Interactive Map Application.” State of California. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/.

Department of Water Resources. “Tulare County Land Use Survey Data, 2007.” State of California, Land and Water Use Data Collections. http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/lusrvymain.cfm.

http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/resourceslinks.cfm

http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/report2003.cfm

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/publicwatersystems.shtml

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gama/ab2222/docs/ab2222.pdf

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/irrigated_lands

http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/casgem

https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/

http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/lusrvymain.cfm




Faunt, C., R.T. Hanson, K. Belitz, W. Schmid, S. Predmore, D. Rewis, and K. McPherson. Groundwater Availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California. Professional Paper 1766, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2009.

Frink, J.W. and H.A. Kues. Corcoran Clay, a Pleistocene Lacustrine Deposit in San Joaquin Valley, California, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 38, no. 11, p. 2357-2371, 1954. Quoted in Fugro West, Inc. Water Resources Investigation of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. Prepared for Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, December 2003, Revised July 2007.

Fugro West, Inc. Water Resources Investigation of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. Prepared for Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, December 2003, Revised July 2007.

Hilton, G.S., McClelland, E.J., Klausing, R.L., and Fred Kunkel. Geology, Hydrology, and Quality of Water in the Terra Bella-Lost Hills Area, San Joaquin Valley, California, as of 1980. Professional Paper, U.S. Geological Survey, 1963. Quoted in Fugro West, Inc. Water Resources Investigation of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. Prepared for Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, December 2003, Revised July 2007.

Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. 2010. Agricultural Water Management Plan. https://www.usbr.gov/mp/watershare/wcplans/2011/Kaweah%20Final%202011%20WMP.pdf. Accessed 26 August 2016.

Klausing, R.L. and K.E. Lohman. Upper Pilocene Marine Strata on the East Side of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Article 124, Short papers in Geology and hydrology, Professional Paper 189-C, U.S. Geological Survey, 1964, p 81-102, 1964. Quoted in Fugro West, Inc. Water Resources Investigation of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. Prepared for Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, December 2003, Revised July 2007.

National Agriculture Imagery Program. “2012 USDA NAIP Imagery.” U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov.

Park, W.H. and J.R. Weddle. Correlation Study of Southern San Joaquin Valley, Summary of Operations, in California Oil Fields, v.45, no.1, p.33-34, 1959. Quoted in Fugro West, Inc. Water Resources Investigation of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. Prepared for Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. December 2003, Revised July 2007.

Provost & Pritchard. Disadvantaged Community Water Study of the Tulare Lake Basin, Table 3.8, August 2014.

Provost & Pritchard. Groundwater Quality Assessment Report (GAR), Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association, Tulare County, California, February 2015

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Dairy Management Group. “Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) list and Water Quality Records, 2007-2012.” Provided by Kris Sisk, 2014.

San Joaquin Valley Greenprint Map Database. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Time Series.” Data from California Department of Conservation, 1984-2010. http://sjvgreenprint.ice.ucdavis.edu.

https://www.usbr.gov/mp/watershare/wcplans/2011/Kaweah%20Final%202011%20WMP.pdf

http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/

http://sjvgreenprint.ice.ucdavis.edu/




San Joaquin Valley Greenprint Map Database. “Water Resources.” Data from U.S. Geological Survey. http://sjvgreenprint.ice.ucdavis.edu.

Smith A.R. Geologic Map of California, Bakersfield Sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:250,000, 1964. Quoted in Fugro West, Inc. Water Resources Investigation of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. Prepared for Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, December 2003, Revised July 2007.

State Water Resources Control Board. “GeoTracker and Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program: Online Groundwater Information System.” State of California Environmental Protection Agency dataset. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/gama.

Tulare County Resource Management Agency. “Water Supplier Database.” Provided by Mike Hickey, 2014.

U.S. Climate Data. Three Rivers, California. http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/three-rivers/california/united-states/usca1555

U.S. Climate Data. Visalia, California. http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/visalia/california/united-states/usca1204

U.S. Geological Survey. “Central Valley Hydrologic Model (CVHM).” U.S. Department of the Interior. http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/central-valley-hydrologic-model.html.

U.S. Geological Survey. “National Hydrography Dataset and Watershed Boundary Dataset.” U.S. Department of the Interior. http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html.

U.S. Geological Survey. National Elevation Dataset.” National Map, U.S. Department of the Interior. http://nationalmap.gov/elevation.html.

Woodring, W.P., Stewart, Ralph and R.W. Richards. Geology of the Kettleman Hills Oil Field, California. USGS Professional Paper 195, 1940. Quoted in Fugro West, Inc. Water Resources Investigation of the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. Prepared for Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, December 2003, Revised July 2007.

http://sjvgreenprint.ice.ucdavis.edu/

http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/gama





http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/central-valley-hydrologic-model.html

http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html

http://nationalmap.gov/elevation.html

www.kaweahbasin.org

Documents

California State Water Resources Control Board · Groundwater Trend Monitoring Workplan . Kaweah Basin Water Quality Association • February 2017 i . Table of Contents . List of